RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
August 19, 2012 at 3:52 am
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2012 at 3:56 am by Creed of Heresy.)
...Ok, Apo, the moment you started with the condescension I immediately almost checked out entirely on what came after. I was trying to understand where you were coming from and therefore positing the only thing that really could be inferred from it since your initial post didn't really give me anything to work with but only vaguely referenced me being wrong. Writing "I should tell you to go fuck yourself" and then pretending like you didn't do just that is the height of condescension and it does little to prove to me that you are such the skilled debater that you claim to be, in fact it harms my opinion of you GREATLY. Well...I should tell you that I no longer give a fuck about what you have to say given that I almost never suffer condescension but I won't, and instead I'll just say this: If you had such a problem with what I wrote then you could have addressed it in far more mature terms rather than acting like a child whose mother I just insulted. At BEST you've sunk to the level you accuse me of being at, at WORST you've INTENTIONALLY insulted me to a far greater extent than I UNINTENTIONALLY insulted you, and next time you have a problem with something I say where I didn't basically state you're unworthy of something [as if you have any right to judge me what I am and am not worthy of receiving], then say that instead so we can resolve the situation before it goes to the point where we BOTH are being insulted over a fucking misunderstanding.
[if you want the quick summary of what I am about to type, just skip to the bottom]
Now, to address your point; I am not going to deny that the information you bring up is very accurate and in all likelihood completely accurate as to why religion became such a key point in human history. After all, spirituality has existed for a very long time. But that's SPIRITUALITY. There is a very key difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is a personal...experience, if you will, a personal belief. Religion, however, is the organization of a belief so that it no longer becomes personal, it becomes shared. Spirituality can be used as a coping mechanism, of course, it's very obvious as to where and why, and in many circumstances it can even be used to create a binding effect within a tribe/clan/culture by the sharing of it AS AN IDEA. RELIGION is when the idea becomes organized enough that it's accepted into a form of practice and ritual.
To cut through this quickly and get to the point: I say religion, specifically religion, was necessary for individuals to hold power over other individuals, and why this is no longer the case because there are other, far better ideas to unite people around. My proof religion being necessary is manifold: The shamans and mystics and oracles who often determined how/when a tribe went to war by their mumbo-jumbo, playing off the superstitious credulity of their fellow clan-members. You want sources on that, then pick up a high-school level history book, it'll do the trick. Shall we look at the priesthoods of Egypt, perhaps, and how the Pharaohs went to them for advice for just about everything important, therefore elevating their esteem much higher? Shall we look at the papacy of the Catholic Church and all its splendor and artifice and all the ridiculous amounts of corruption that have plagued it from the very getgo? How about the Oracles of Greece who were doted upon with gifts for the service of "predilection?" How about the Dalai Lama and his own version of a priesthood basically lording it over the peasantry and serfs in their little private kingdom in Tibet until the Chinese basically booted him out? Find me an example where religion has NOT basically been used as an excuse to maintain power over the poor pitiful less-informed; you may do so but you won't find as many as I will be able to dig up where religion WAS used as an excuse to maintain power over the aforementioned peasantry.
Do I refute that spiritual "higher power" concepts are basically a neurological, evolutionary trait imbued in us? No, because I don't have the information necessary to do so and truth be told that would make sense. But that's not my point. I'm not saying that spirituality was invented by humans, I am saying the organization of spirituality and the use of it to force and exert and manipulate control over others, something we know as religion, WAS.
Basically, you're taking issues with the "how" and "why" of my post and I agree it is faulty and all over the place but the general idea that I was getting at was that religion was necessary for most, if not all rulers of nations and cultures, to justify why they should rule. Nowadays the consent of rule is derived more from the people rather than an invisible power. Mostly. This is an idea that is spreading; most of Europe and the Americas have adopted it, nations in the Mediterranean are starting to demand it, hell even nations in the middle east are starting to warm to the idea [though US interference over the last decade has done little to promote it positively]. No longer is religion necessary to justify a leader's rule; it's being rapidly replaced [rapidly is a relative term but contrasted to the overall length of human history it's rapid] by the idea that a ruler is only fit to rule at the behest of those he governs. THAT was the entire point I was driving at; not so much the origins of belief and why we believe [I'll leave that to evolutionary biologists and neurologists who have studied and practiced in their fields for decades] but rather what those beliefs have been so often used for across human history and why we don't need to succumb to that way of thinking anymore as a means to legitimize governance.
In short: My response to your objections are: You are correct, but that was not quite the point I was driving at. I was wrong where you stated I am wrong and I readily admit that but my overarching point still remains that religion was a basis for rule of the few over the many for far too long and it is no longer necessary for it to do so since newer ideas have taken root in the mentality of the human race, ones that afford far more respect to a far larger group of people rather than just the self-proclaimed "chosen" few.
[if you want the quick summary of what I am about to type, just skip to the bottom]
Now, to address your point; I am not going to deny that the information you bring up is very accurate and in all likelihood completely accurate as to why religion became such a key point in human history. After all, spirituality has existed for a very long time. But that's SPIRITUALITY. There is a very key difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is a personal...experience, if you will, a personal belief. Religion, however, is the organization of a belief so that it no longer becomes personal, it becomes shared. Spirituality can be used as a coping mechanism, of course, it's very obvious as to where and why, and in many circumstances it can even be used to create a binding effect within a tribe/clan/culture by the sharing of it AS AN IDEA. RELIGION is when the idea becomes organized enough that it's accepted into a form of practice and ritual.
To cut through this quickly and get to the point: I say religion, specifically religion, was necessary for individuals to hold power over other individuals, and why this is no longer the case because there are other, far better ideas to unite people around. My proof religion being necessary is manifold: The shamans and mystics and oracles who often determined how/when a tribe went to war by their mumbo-jumbo, playing off the superstitious credulity of their fellow clan-members. You want sources on that, then pick up a high-school level history book, it'll do the trick. Shall we look at the priesthoods of Egypt, perhaps, and how the Pharaohs went to them for advice for just about everything important, therefore elevating their esteem much higher? Shall we look at the papacy of the Catholic Church and all its splendor and artifice and all the ridiculous amounts of corruption that have plagued it from the very getgo? How about the Oracles of Greece who were doted upon with gifts for the service of "predilection?" How about the Dalai Lama and his own version of a priesthood basically lording it over the peasantry and serfs in their little private kingdom in Tibet until the Chinese basically booted him out? Find me an example where religion has NOT basically been used as an excuse to maintain power over the poor pitiful less-informed; you may do so but you won't find as many as I will be able to dig up where religion WAS used as an excuse to maintain power over the aforementioned peasantry.
Do I refute that spiritual "higher power" concepts are basically a neurological, evolutionary trait imbued in us? No, because I don't have the information necessary to do so and truth be told that would make sense. But that's not my point. I'm not saying that spirituality was invented by humans, I am saying the organization of spirituality and the use of it to force and exert and manipulate control over others, something we know as religion, WAS.
Basically, you're taking issues with the "how" and "why" of my post and I agree it is faulty and all over the place but the general idea that I was getting at was that religion was necessary for most, if not all rulers of nations and cultures, to justify why they should rule. Nowadays the consent of rule is derived more from the people rather than an invisible power. Mostly. This is an idea that is spreading; most of Europe and the Americas have adopted it, nations in the Mediterranean are starting to demand it, hell even nations in the middle east are starting to warm to the idea [though US interference over the last decade has done little to promote it positively]. No longer is religion necessary to justify a leader's rule; it's being rapidly replaced [rapidly is a relative term but contrasted to the overall length of human history it's rapid] by the idea that a ruler is only fit to rule at the behest of those he governs. THAT was the entire point I was driving at; not so much the origins of belief and why we believe [I'll leave that to evolutionary biologists and neurologists who have studied and practiced in their fields for decades] but rather what those beliefs have been so often used for across human history and why we don't need to succumb to that way of thinking anymore as a means to legitimize governance.
In short: My response to your objections are: You are correct, but that was not quite the point I was driving at. I was wrong where you stated I am wrong and I readily admit that but my overarching point still remains that religion was a basis for rule of the few over the many for far too long and it is no longer necessary for it to do so since newer ideas have taken root in the mentality of the human race, ones that afford far more respect to a far larger group of people rather than just the self-proclaimed "chosen" few.
