God and god.

We must here draw a distinction between Gods. There are two. The God of the one, and the Gods of the many. The God of the one is my God, and your God, whoever or whatever they may be, the ones who may be found anyplace we happen to be, in a moment of quiet contemplation. These are the Gods who hear our curses, who weep with us at the graveside, who comfort us when our hearts are troubled. These are God as God is to us.

The Gods of Religion are not these Gods.

The Gods of religion are the Gods of the many, the Gods of society, the final arbieters of judgement, holding sway over the court of final appeal - Authority inviolate. These Gods are only found in Churches and Mosques and temples. They do not stoop to sit upon our shoulders, they are hard, statuesque, unbending.

But they are necessary, useful. As is religion. Any institution that defines and praises/rewards good acts, as most churches do at their base, promotes goodness, by which we really mean kindness, by providing a wellspring of grattitude by proxy. This is a very necessary thing, because in the real world kindness, though at first eliciting grattitude, upon repetition soon breeds only expectation, dependency and eventual resentment. Again, this pitiful chain of response is not good, not bad, only human, we do not like to be humbled, to acknowledge we fall into a group that ‘needs to be helped’, it is galling, an affront to our vanity.

Incidently on a social level, this resentment of the weaker toward the stronger, the helped to the helper is circumvented by the creation of the concept of ‘rights’. The freedom of speech etc. I know I can call Mike Tyson a complete bastard because it is my ‘right’ to express my opinion. But this is bullshit. I can express my freedom of speech only because impllicit in the social contract is that the state will protect the individual. Me, in this case. The freedom of speech is not a right, it is a privilige lent to me by society, in the interests of harmony. The only rights I have in reality, are those I can protect personally, with my fists.

It makes me angry when some fucker on the TV forgets this and uses his freedom of speech to willfully create discord.

Evil of course, needs no church - Evil needs little prompting, and is its own reward.

Anyway, I digress.

Why are primitive religions ‘primitive’ - Ancestors, great-spirits, nature-pantheons, crazy beer-sodden War-Gods etc…?

Because they are religions with a different purpose than the ones that came later.

Why is village-life more peaceful, why is there less crime…? Because there are less people - less than 150-200 to be exact. Everybody knows everybody. The community polices itself, what’s the point of stealing Aunty Vera’s necklace if you can’t wear it, or sell it, or melt it down without suspicion…? Exactly.

There was a time when the whole world was villages. Islands of people in the great green void. Then the purpose of religion, or myth-cycle, or perhaps most truthfully - story culture was to amuse, and to explain. To give us causes where none can be found. To give us the why’s of the sunrise, of the dark, of the seasons, the storms and the lightning. Of death, of life, of fate and doom.

Zeus was a much more interesting God than God, so was Thor and the trickster, so were the dryads, the nixies and the trolls. Of course they were, they were always intended to be. Homer could never have written the bible - He’d have been running about, pulling his hair out crying “We need more Hydras in there dammit!!! I’m gonna get laughed off the stage !!!”

Most importantly - these little gods and godesses reflected human nature, they did not presume to tell us how to live. For the simple fact that the societies that spawned them in their imaginations did not need to be told how to live in relative harmony, because they already - naturally - lived in relative harmony. What agression and ill-feeling there was, could be directed outside the community, because at that time… There always was an ‘outside of the community’ to be had.

Not like now. In these global times.

Then numbers grew. Grew beyond the number that any individual within that community could reasonably get to know well, well enough to know the specific links between person X, person Y and themselves.

In game theory, altruistic strategies of behaviour only make sense in indefinite re-itterated games. In common language, it only makes sense to be nice as a default, nice to everyone, if you have a high chance of encountering that person again, at which point you will hope perhaps, they will return your favour. And if they don’t, you will punish them by withdrawing yours.

Communities don’t choose suddenly to go bad. It’s just numbers. Beyond a certain size of population, societies get ‘invaded’ by selfish, agressive, nasty people. Why…? Because they can be. Say I’m hungry, and I’m walking down a shadey street. Along comes another guy with a sandwich in his hand. Never seen him before in my life, doesn’t resemble any family characteristic I’m familliar with.

I split into two - The angel nods, and walks by. The devil nods, walks by, turns, and clubs Mr. Sandwich to death.

Eventually, the angel dies, the devil persists.

What tends to persist, becomes more common.

So, a village that swells into a city, as all prosperous villages will do, must find some way to police themselves, or fade away.

Let me tell you a tale of two cities.

In one, the city maintains its old religion, its licentious and indulgent gods. It also has a whacking great police force, on constant guard against persons who attack the body politic, who work against the harmony of the whole. A whole lot of energy, time and money goes into the police force. A whole lot of time, energy and money that could be put to better use.

In the second - Their religion changes. God becomes fierce. Bloody minded, eye-plucking, hand-chopping, plague-sending, soul-reaping, soul-damning. God with a uniform, God with a nightstick. God on the beat.
There, the police force is not so big, not so hard-working, because now, people don’t steal because the risk is not just a couple of nights in the pen and a fucking good hiding from the pigs, it is their eternal souls.

Suddenly the jewel sparkles less brightly, and the apple looks less appetizing.

Which city will prosper…? Which will grow quicker…? Fight harder…? Compete more successfully…? Persist…?

What tends to persist, becomes more common. Becomes the norm. Becomes the one and only.

Village religions are entertaining, fear-quelling, explanitory religions.

City religions are cohesion-maintaining, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ religions, and most importantly - give as good as you get religions. They have to be, lest the city fall, the society fade, their Gods forgotten.

Eventually Empires grow, the world shrinks, boundaries evaporate. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’, because its all us.

Game theory: Altruistic strategy, (good for good, good for bad), communities are first invaded by ‘evil’ ‘selfish’ strategies as the population grows (bad for good, bad for bad). A plateu is reached and population steadies. At this point, the society will either fail and fall back to a lower population, or grow, if - and only if - the common strategy changes to a ‘give what you get’ type, one that rewards good behaviour, and punishes bad behaviour (good for good, bad for bad). Again, a plateau is reached - limited by the average number of human mistakes made in any interaction.

ie - we are the best of friends, until I accidently throw up on your wife. Then we are enemies. Forever.

That’s the trouble with the old-testament God, with ‘give what you get’ there is no forgiveness.

So, in order for a community to grow beyond the city, into the empire, into the world - you need forgiveness. You need to try to recreate the default altruism of the village, but on a global scale, between total strangers.

So Jesus turns his cheek, and forgives his friend a vomit-stained wife.

And that’s it.

Religion is necessary for growth. It is helpful at all stages of population growth until, suddenly, it’s not.

Which is where we are now. As the global population, in the past divided, has now technically become one, as the ‘outside of the community’ has shrunken and disappeared - all that pent-up agression, that evil, that selfishness that is so natural to us, so demanding of expression, so adamant in its righteousness…

…Suddenly has no-where to go. And a religion that once preached forgiveness is warped and twisted into just another reason to make a fist.

Inevitable. Unavoidable.

But let us hope, not insurmountable.

God doesn’t witness my thoughts and console me. My unconscious does.

Impious, you totally gave up after the first paragraph.

Tab, I don’t see how you reach your ultimate conclusion. I followed you all the way down, but I don’t see how you conclude that we’re past that point now? The argument you make supports the idea that religion is necessary, and probably always will be necessary, for society to function in cities.
What’s the trouble with a lack of forgiveness? Sure, it’s a little harsh, but like you said, game theory says that in a big system, it’s as good as it gets. Why should we consider ourselves able to get past a theory that supposedly applies to all such systems?

Just a quibble… in the OT, there are the sacrifices for forgiveness and the years of favor which cancel out debts. And I don’t know where you think it says “you give what you get” – that’s not what “an eye for an eye” means, but that there is a limit on vengeance.

I can grant your historical analysis, and even accept the notion that it is easier to fly under the banner of religion, but is religion really a necessity for social cohesiveness? Even as the world grows smaller and more people are mucking about, are we not returning to the village? Consider this discussion board. There aren’t more than a hundred consistently active members in any given week regardless the 7000+ enrollment. The “village” may be scattered over the globe, but a village it remains. The same is true even in the megalopolis cities. Yes, millions crammed into a small space, but people living and functioning in small enclaves oblivious to the larger population.

Given the current extremism of religion, is this really the best we can expect of a so-called system of cohesiveness? If religion is required for social structure, then its’ exclusivity would suggest that while it may be the social glue in some aspects, it is also the destroyer in others.

I think I’d like a better solution than more religion. At this point, in too much of the world, religion is dangerous for your health… :astonished:

What we need, is better pills.

I agree Ucc. Religion is a big nasty pill to swallow. Never could get one to stay down… :laughing:

That’s a good one!

Okay, this includes a theme in the OP which I don’t agree with. It is being proposed that religion exists for the sake of community. I say that religion – our duties to God – are things which are good in themselves. In fact, this is why in America, there are rights to religion, because rights are corelative (defined in terms of each other) to duties. Seeking God is a good in itself. Although I’m not sure how this truely relates to culture. I would like to propose that culture and community exist for the sake of religion, not religion for the sake of culture. Culture is human output – shared; and religion a deep human desire (or desire before input) – shared.

Make sense?

Nope. What if my god is the god of murder and death, and she encourages me to eat mice and bash fetuses? Still good in itself?

I disagree. The cause of evil is ignorance of its consequences. Evil seems the selfish choice, but only with selfish defined as depriving others. Good is much more beneficial for the self.

Primitive religion was just a very big application of a basic principle of science: that it is above as it is below. That is, that all “levels” of the world, from heavens to society to quantum froth, function similarly. Or at least can be stated in terms we are familiar with. Humans at that time were most familiar with people, so they explained things in terms of people.

I think you could seek a more positive god.
But then, I was talking about God.

As for evil religions being standardised, think of heresy – i.e. not understanding the traditions handed down.

The point is, seeking god is not of itself good. It’s only good when you find the right one, when you find the “true” god. The one that encourages you to act to the benefit of your society.

I have that – what do you have?

The knowledge that moral actions are more beneficial to the doer than immoral actions.

Truely. Is that from knowledge (proveable) or from faith?

That is, I agree, but it doesn’t seem that way in this world prima facie.
It seems in some cases the definitions of the moral are changed;
it all seems to depend on the modern world’s expectations.

Sorry to get so heavy in that last post.

Another thing to be said here is that the truely good man does not do the good (only) for society’s sake or it’s practical value, but because he loves the good itself. At least Aristotle thought so.

Hope this doens’t sound too sophmoric, but perhaps this is the difference in AD&D between being Lawful and being Good: – now if I could only find the correct way to be both…

mrn

I think you’ve found the precise point of the split, MRN. I’d have to say that a theory of religion/God that takes it for granted that religion is a sociological widget and evaluates it that way has nothing of use for the believer. Religion does have it’s effect on society, and one could even say that religion is for having a certain effect on society, but that intended effect has to be wrapped up in the reality of God, or else it doesn’t matter.

I agree. I think the topic here was written from a non-religious perspective, and makes non-religious assumptions. It is possible to be non-religious and support religion, and I think that Tab’s post mostly addresses such a view, not those who are religious and support religion.

Hi folks - Sorry not to answer you all personally. Seems you have been doing fine without me anyway.

Carleas gets the gold-medal.

Indeed, one of my assumptions, putting aside the presence or non-presence of God, is that religion is a manifestation of man, rather than a manifestation of divinity.

I also assume that beyond its attempt to generalize and ritualize the relationship betwixt God and man, religion is also an adaptive social construct, lending the society that accepts it advantages when in competition with other societies, and their Gods.

Ironicly, at least in my view, it is the very concept of divinity that both enervates and dooms a religion.

As a work of man, the belief set promoted by a given religion is perforce rooted in the time of its creation. Its chief societal effects are at their most potent when applied within a sphere of social and enviromental conditions mimicking that time. The inforcement behind these words, be they simply oratorial, or written, is the proclimation "These are the words of God - Disobey them at the peril of your immortal soul", (or whatever is the vehicle of choice for an afterlife). But this motivator to behavioural conformity, so necessary to mainstream - ie ‘memetically*’ successful - religions - is also what eventually kills it.

Follow the logic:

*God is perfect, therefore the things he causes to come into being, are also perfect.

*Perfection is a thing which, encompassing all eventualities within its design, need not change. Indeed, to profess a belief that it must change is to deny its perfection. And in this case also its sacredness. Essentially, to deny the perfection of something attributed to God, is to deny God.

*However, assuming religious doctrines to be works of man, evolved via social conflict - the most socially/economically advantageous winning out over time - include an essential temporal component: the cultural/social conditions/problems against which the religion grew as a ‘behavioural solution’.

*Also acknowledging that times and cultures perforce… Change.

=> Leads a religion to fail as it succeeds. In that by changing/improving the social conditions that brought it about, it also undermines its own authority: once a threshold is crossed and not enough of the originating social topography remains to highlight the benefits of said religon, indeed instead begins to show only its shortcommings, and remembering the inherrent inflexiblity of the divine/perfect aspect of the scripture/doctrine in question - leads its believers through simple common sense to first question the practicality of those doctrines, and in doing so, even if unknowingly, the whole question of God.

This questioning, and the reactions to it of those who have aquired power through the influence of existant religious infrastructure, leads to either a crumbling of that religion, as we see in the West to some extent, or a frantic and fanatical preservation of a (now antiquated and unbeneficial) cultural state mimicking that of the religions instigation.

Cultural stasis and isolationism. The Middle East.

*I use ‘memetic’ in the very loosest of meanings - compare with with ‘tradition’.

A “God” is etymologically “that which is invoked” (Aryan). The Hebrew “El” comes from a word meaning to be strong and is curiously used in plural when talking about Jahwe (Jahwe Elohim rendered “Lord God”). The Latin “nūmen” indicates a nod, a command, divine will or power, divinity (akin to nūtāre to nod the head in commanding or assent).

The ways that cultures came to their “gods” vary, but the development to this concept was never a humdrum affair. Instead it was the attempt to give the cause of things observed a name, which all the same people never held in their hands. It was attributed with strength and authority and apparently could be called upon to enlighten, but many of the attributes given to God today are attributes of the metaphors used, not of the Ineffable itself.

The biggest problem we have is that we forget that in the Judeo-Christian tradition has left the fact behind that God is more an internal affair than an external affair. The New Covenant, which Jesus obviously took up, was to be written on “hearts and inmost parts”, the “basileia” of God is “in you”, “in your midst”, “inside” (entos) you. The idea of a “Being” is invoked by images, which are forbidden for good reason in Judaism, that spark our imagination, but you can’t imagine what “God” is.

Shalom