Do Religions have a common form?

[charles brough]

In other words, what is the trick that made some religions spread over whole continents and maintain some sort of unity and which, in effect, pushed aside the unsuccessful ones?

As you might already have observed, I am thinking that "religion" is a FORM of belief rather than WHAT IS BELIEVED. In other words, it is not the "belief in 'God(s)'" that makes a religion but rather whether or not it has the form needed to function as a religion.

When you analyze the successful religions, what you find is they all provide what they think is "the Truth." What this so-called "truth" always comes to is an explanation of the origin of the people of the faith and their subsequent history, their goal or where they expect to end up as a people, what moral formula or code they need to use and what stands in their way. They also have some teaching about death.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that any belief system that provided those answers would succeed. Yet, that is not the case. What else is needed?

charles

[Hokulele]

What else is needed?


Support from a major political leader.

Politics has probably had more influence on the success or failure of major religions more than any internal structure or "truth". Study the history of China, particularly the institution of Confucionism, Taoism, and Buddhism, for several excellent examples.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find this an interesting topic. One has to wonder why L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were so successful while dozens and dozens more were not.

It would appear that timing, the size of one's initial following, certain successful techniques, and the appeal of your message do have variations which could explain a lot. I think it is complex and multi-factorial including perhaps a random conjunction of certain variables together.

[Fiona]

and money

[six7s]

A recursive algorithm of creative writing and marketing

Check out Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth > Getting Started > POCM (http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html)

[The Atheist]

In other words, what is the trick that made some religions spread over whole continents and maintain some sort of unity and which, in effect, pushed aside the unsuccessful ones?

Marketing.

Just like any business - and what is religion but a tax-free business - success or failure hinges on the ability to create a market, or in the case of a religion, a congregation. No people tithing = dead church. Big tithe = bigger, better churches, tv advertising and even bigger tithes!

I find this an interesting topic. One has to wonder why L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were so successful while dozens and dozens more were not.

Two classic examples of marketing winning converts and paying customers.

LRH already had a following and decided to cash in on it, while Joe set up every man's dream church - unlimited poontang on earth and everlasting life! Who would've turned that down? Lately, their marketing efforts have been somewhat more subtle.

Take a look at a dying church - Anglicanism in the UK. It is staffed by people to whom marketing of their god is anathema and they're getting eaten by charismatic churches.

In fifty years, Anglicanism will be almost extinct.

[six7s]

In fifty years, Anglicanism will be almost extinct.And this will adversely affect the dividends payable to the Sachsen-Coburg family how?

[FreeChile]

In other words, what is the trick that made some religions spread over whole continents and maintain some sort of unity and which, in effect, pushed aside the unsuccessful ones?

As you might already have observed, I am thinking that "religion" is a FORM of belief rather than WHAT IS BELIEVED. In other words, it is not the "belief in 'God(s)'" that makes a religion but rather whether or not it has the form needed to function as a religion.

When you analyze the successful religions, what you find is they all provide what they think is "the Truth." What this so-called "truth" always comes to is an explanation of the origin of the people of the faith and their subsequent history, their goal or where they expect to end up as a people, what moral formula or code they need to use and what stands in their way. They also have some teaching about death.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that any belief system that provided those answers would succeed. Yet, that is not the case. What else is needed?

charles
Religions tend to change with the changing times. That includes scriptures like The Bible. So it is not possible to say what is successfull or unsucessful as a single unit. You can't say, for example, that the Christianity practiced by primitive Christians is the same religion as the Christianity practiced by the Catholics, the Rosicrucians, the Baptists, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Although they all believe in the same central figure Jesus Christ, there are very significant differences and similarities. The similarities appear accross religions including Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. While their differences distinguish them almost entirely. So taking away the central, similar figure of Jesus, you could not say that they are the same religion. Take for example the Catholic Church. Prior to the 1960's I believe, they did not accept other religions are valid. Now they accept that there could be salvation in other faiths. Would you say that is the same religion?

[The Atheist]

And this will adversely affect the dividends payable to the Sachsen-Coburg family how?

Depends whether you'd you rather have a nice, vague, almost-agnostic Anglican, or a bible-thumping creationist moron.

[six7s]

Depends whether you'd you rather have a nice, vague, almost-agnostic Anglican, or a bible-thumping creationist moron.If I was one of the shareholders, I wouldn't care either way

Nor would I care if 'success' of the family business was measured in €, £, $ or ¥

[six7s]

Religions tend to change with the changing times.So does the motor industry

Although they all believe in the same central figure Jesus Christ, there are very significant differences and similarities. The similarities appear accross religions including Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Although they all exploit the same central need, travel, there are very significant differences and similarities. The similarities appear across brands including Ford, Audi, Mazda, etc.

While their differences distinguish them almost entirely. So taking away the central, similar figure of Jesus, you could not say that they are the same religion. While their differences distinguish them almost entirely. So taking away the central, identical concept of internal conbustion powered motors, you could not say that they are the same brand.

Take for example the Catholic Church. Prior to the 1960's I believe, they did not accept other religions are valid. Now they accept that there could be salvation in other faiths. Would you say that is the same religion?Take for example the Ford Motor Company. Prior to the 1908 I believe, they did not offers colours other than black. Now they offer every colour imaginable. Would you say that is the same brand?

[Kopji]

The question of what constitutes a 'successful religion' is not something I find easy to answer. Religions often start out one way and kind of evolve as they go. If you asked me what the goal of a given religion was, I'd have to ask about the time frame.

Perhaps HOW people believe is the most important aspect of whatever religion is believed. Is the core WHAT really all that different between religions?

A successful religion must have followers who accept it as an authoritative source of true knowledge: Ultimately something is 'true' because they say it is and can get people to believe it.

Success is being in the right place at the right time with the right product.

On 'form', yes I tend to agree that there are some common traits.
Arguments over form and function are more complex than they seem though.

1 There is form that follows function
2 Function that follows form
3 A complete deception where form and function are irrelevant to a goal
4 An integral view of form and function where they interact
5 Something else I'm not smart enough to think of?

Religion could be any of those form/function relationships.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Marketing.

Just like any business - and what is religion but a tax-free business - success or failure hinges on the ability to create a market, or in the case of a religion, a congregation. No people tithing = dead church. Big tithe = bigger, better churches, tv advertising and even bigger tithes!



Two classic examples of marketing winning converts and paying customers.

LRH already had a following and decided to cash in on it, while Joe set up every man's dream church - unlimited poontang on earth and everlasting life! Who would've turned that down? Lately, their marketing efforts have been somewhat more subtle.

Take a look at a dying church - Anglicanism in the UK. It is staffed by people to whom marketing of their god is anathema and they're getting eaten by charismatic churches.

In fifty years, Anglicanism will be almost extinct.You point out one critical variable, successful marketing. Smith had people willing to relocate for whatever reason. The idea people feel a unifying persecution is a powerful marketing tool. If you combine that with hardship and group response you can get either political nationalism (1984 continual war keeping the powerful in power) or religious fanaticism (Smith stopping short of California, the land of milk and honey, because he recognized hardship was key to keeping the flock motivated).

And the Evangelical movement is currently doing handstands around the boring Catholic and Anglican groups in terms of over the top marketing. Incredible Catholic churches and rituals which attracted throngs in the past are old and outdated compared to 3 stage huge productions of the megachurches complete with rock bands and worldwide conferences.

[Kopji]

Joseph Smith's one problem with leading his people to Utah and teaching polygamy there was that he was already dead.

(That was Brigham Young). :D

[Beerina]

In other words, what is the trick that made some religions spread over whole continents and maintain some sort of unity and which, in effect, pushed aside the unsuccessful ones?

As you might already have observed, I am thinking that "religion" is a FORM of belief rather than WHAT IS BELIEVED. In other words, it is not the "belief in 'God(s)'" that makes a religion but rather whether or not it has the form needed to function as a religion.

When you analyze the successful religions, what you find is they all provide what they think is "the Truth." What this so-called "truth" always comes to is an explanation of the origin of the people of the faith and their subsequent history, their goal or where they expect to end up as a people, what moral formula or code they need to use and what stands in their way. They also have some teaching about death.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that any belief system that provided those answers would succeed. Yet, that is not the case. What else is needed?

charles

You might want to look into "memes". These are basically ideas that create a mental model of reality that causes people to behave in a certain way, but the model does not fully and accurately reflect reality, to say the least.

They "reproduce" by being taught to other people and evolve by changing their narrative to alter the mental model, the real world behavior, or both.

[Professor Yaffle]

You might want to look into "memes". These are basically ideas that create a mental model of reality that causes people to behave in a certain way, but the model does not fully and accurately reflect reality, to say the least.

They "reproduce" by being taught to other people and evolve by changing their narrative to alter the mental model, the real world behavior, or both.

That's an approach included in Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0713997893

I won't recommend it though, as I only got half way through it, myself.

[Foster Zygote]

I find this an interesting topic. One has to wonder why L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were so successful while dozens and dozens more were not.

It would appear that timing, the size of one's initial following, certain successful techniques, and the appeal of your message do have variations which could explain a lot. I think it is complex and multi-factorial including perhaps a random conjunction of certain variables together.

Some simply self-destructed like Jim Jones, Vernon Wayne Howell, Marshall Applewhite etc.

[Foster Zygote]

That's an approach included in Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0713997893

I won't recommend it though, as I only got half way through it, myself.

I've just begun reading it this weekend.

[six7s]

You might want to look into "memes".But be warned: It's heavy stuff!

[rocketdodger]

I was about to start a thread on this!

Does that Dennet book offer a memetic treatment of religion? If not I would love to see a book that does.

I would speculate that the major component all religious memes share is the defensive behavior of correlating heretical thoughts with something like "sin." It makes sense, from a memetic standpoint, to prevent carriers from acquiring any other memes. You could say religion is like the Microsoft of memes.

[Professor Yaffle]

There are plenty of videos on the web of Dennett talking on the subject.

[DeGuerre]

Religions tend to change with the changing times. That includes scriptures like The Bible. So it is not possible to say what is successfull or unsucessful as a single unit. You can't say, for example, that the Christianity practiced by primitive Christians is the same religion as the Christianity practiced by the Catholics, the Rosicrucians, the Baptists, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc.

This, by the way, is a key point. Religions which survive do so because they evolve to be more "fit" as circumstances change.

Christianity is one of the best examples of this, because it evolved from a weird Jewish sect to something that fit better with Greek philosophy before the Bible was finished being written. It wasn't the first to evolve in this way, and won't be the last, but it was one of the fastest.

There's a deep sense in which the phrase "traditional Christianity" (substitute any religion that's been around for long enough) is actually meaningless. People who claim that they're trying to get back to it know not of what they speak.

[articulett]

I think virulent religious memes spread similar to chain letters--

You are promised great rewards for spreading the message and threatened if you disobey or fail to pass along the "good word".

So long as people believe in immortal souls that can suffer in the after life, religions offer the simple solution --an insurance policy to avoid the suffering. All you have to do is believe and give allegiance to the one who speaks for the invisible guy determining your eternity.

As a bonus, you get eternal bliss-- all for just believing!-- and that's not all-- if you act now, you can get the exquisite joy of imagining your enemies suffering forever and you can imagine yourself humble as you claim to know divine truths! Faith allows you to feel extraordinary and special without having to actually do anything moral, extraordinary or special.

[Pardalis]

Do religions have a common form?

Yeah, they're all bunk.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joseph Smith's one problem with leading his people to Utah and teaching polygamy there was that he was already dead.

(That was Brigham Young). :DSorry, my bad.

[charles brough]

Support from a major political leader.

Politics has probably had more influence on the success or failure of major religions more than any internal structure or "truth". Study the history of China, particularly the institution of Confucionism, Taoism, and Buddhism, for several excellent examples.

Do you mean that religions succeed because government or government leaders impose them? I think Christianity spread because of Peter and Paul adapted the real Jesus to the wishes and Ideals of people who hated the declining Roman Empire that they lived in. Buddhism started out as a secular philosophical system and Confusius started a secular movement. Mohammed was a poet until he started his movement.

Politics itself depends upon beliefs. The religions determine government more than government determine religion. Even our secular politicians now have to say they are Christians in order to get votes.

[Hokulele]

Do you mean that religions succeed because government or government leaders impose them? I think Christianity spread because of Peter and Paul adapted the real Jesus to the wishes and Ideals of people who hated the declining Roman Empire that they lived in. Buddhism started out as a secular philosophical system and Confusius started a secular movement. Mohammed was a poet until he started his movement.


Please look at the spread of Christianity pre- and post- the conversion of Constantine I. Please look at the spread of Confucianism pre- and post- the Song dynasty. (Note, Confucius himself had very little effect on philosophy or government. His disciples and students are credited with the development and promotion of the beliefs that bear his name.) Regarding Islam, look up the term caliph. The largest spread of the major religions can for the most part be traced to the support of political leaders.

Politics itself depends upon beliefs. The religions determine government more than government determine religion. Even our secular politicians now have to say they are Christians in order to get votes.


Oh hell no. Read up on Constantine I. Read up on the founding fathers of the United States (particular Jefferson). Then, read up on the anti-communism of the '50's and how it shaped the political scene as we know it today.

[six7s]

The largest spread of the major religions can for the most part be traced to the support of political leaders.Hardly surprising, given the potency of such 'crowd-controlling' opiates

[Kopji]

Sorry, my bad.
Well, it was pure heresy. :D Everyone knows that Joseph Smith did not really practice polygamy, but it was introduced by the nefarious Brigham Young.

I think that the rise of Mormonism offers some good examples of how complex this can be though. If you google on the phrase "the burned over district", and then mix in something on popular spiritualism of the mid 1800's like the Fox sisters, it is quite a journey.

I do agree with the comments that politics has much to do with how religion evolves and survives, but there is also an element where religion grows as an answer to popular fears or times of uncertainty.

In Mormonism's case, the Book of Mormon is a strong rebuttal to 'Age of Enlightenment' thinking of the 1800's. If offers a God that is still the same as the magical deity of old, that the Bible is true, and that reason and science are wrong to sweep God into a smaller and smaller corner.

[Radrook]

Religions which most effectively address the common human concerns of:

1. What happens after death?

2. Where do we come from?

3. Where are we going?

4. Are we alone in the universe?

5. What is our status in the universe?

6. What is the purpose of life?

....appear to be the most successful.

[FreeChile]

So does the motor industry

Although they all exploit the same central need, travel, there are very significant differences and similarities. The similarities appear across brands including Ford, Audi, Mazda, etc.

While their differences distinguish them almost entirely. So taking away the central, identical concept of internal conbustion powered motors, you could not say that they are the same brand.

Take for example the Ford Motor Company. Prior to the 1908 I believe, they did not offers colours other than black. Now they offer every colour imaginable. Would you say that is the same brand?
I have a feeling the answer to your question is "No". But I can't answer your question because I can't understand your analogy. Perhaps you could indicate which things you are equating or presenting as being similar. In the context of religions, what is the motor industry similar to? Also, what do you mean by a brand and what religious element does it assimilate in your analogy? Are you referring to the name of the company or something else?

[charles brough]

Please look at the spread of Christianity pre- and post- the conversion of Constantine I. Please look at the spread of Confucianism pre- and post- the Song dynasty. (Note, Confucius himself had very little effect on philosophy or government. His disciples and students are credited with the development and promotion of the beliefs that bear his name.) Regarding Islam, look up the term caliph. The largest spread of the major religions can for the most part be traced to the support of political leaders.

Oh hell no. Read up on Constantine I. Read up on the founding fathers of the United States (particular Jefferson). Then, read up on the anti-communism of the '50's and how it shaped the political scene as we know it today.

I have read up on all that. I have whole chapters on it in "Destiny & Civilization, the evolutionary explanation of religion and history." Half the people of the Empire had converted by the time Constantine "converted" to it. His role was to make it the official religion only and that encouraged the continual spread to the rest of the people.

You cannot explain history by the old and outdated "great man" theory! Even politics is ideological. Are you unaware that your beliefs are shaped by the ideology of Secular Humanism? You think you have "Truth" and use "logic" to reach it, but even ancient people had the same thing. "Truth" to them was that "spirits" caused things. So, it was, to them, logical that if they did not plant the grain at the desired depth, the "spirits" would feel dishonored and would punish them so they did not sprout. For what they kinew, their reasoning was logical.

[charles brough]

I find this an interesting topic. One has to wonder why L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were so successful while dozens and dozens more were not.

It would appear that timing, the size of one's initial following, certain successful techniques, and the appeal of your message do have variations which could explain a lot. I think it is complex and multi-factorial including perhaps a random conjunction of certain variables together.

seems to me that religion has to become large enough and spread to enough people that they are able to set up their own government in their own territory. These are the "mainstream" religions. The rest do not achieve that stutus and, hence, do not shape the course of history as do the mainline ones.

Mormanism and let us say Rev. Moon's religion were never advanced enough to be successful. By "advanced" I mean consistent with current science and have doctrines that the world needs to meet coming challenges. Both of them relied upon the same 2,000 year old Formula of only their prophet having the "right and final World of God." Joseph almost had his own territory and government but the U.S. Army prevailed! Christianity was the stronger.

[charles brough]

Marketing.

Just like any business - and what is religion but a tax-free business - success or failure hinges on the ability to create a market, or in the case of a religion, a congregation. No people tithing = dead church. Big tithe = bigger, better churches, tv advertising and even bigger tithes!

People are, of course, motivated by money. We are also social animals that evolved to live in groups and are instinctively motivated in ways that enable us to do so. With language and speech, we have to have common beliefs in order to function. I am an atheist and I suppose you are also, but that is all the more reason to look at belief systems and not use economics to discount them.
We should understand our "enemy" not underestimate him.

[charles brough]

You might want to look into "memes". These are basically ideas that create a mental model of reality that causes people to behave in a certain way, but the model does not fully and accurately reflect reality, to say the least.

The "meme" theory is what I regard as a simplistic trick and, as you indicate, useless. It does not explain the complicated process of history. In my book, "Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History," I show how natural selection operates between societies. In it is the only explanation for why civilizations rise and fall and even accounts for the multiple rises and falls each used to undergo. (Egypt had three such cycles, Islam and Christendom only two).

[charles brough]

Religions tend to change with the changing times. That includes scriptures like The Bible. So it is not possible to say what is successfull or unsucessful as a single unit. You can't say, for example, that the Christianity practiced by primitive Christians is the same religion as the Christianity practiced by the Catholics, the Rosicrucians, the Baptists, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Although they all believe in the same central figure Jesus Christ, there are very significant differences and similarities. The similarities appear accross religions including Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. While their differences distinguish them almost entirely. So taking away the central, similar figure of Jesus, you could not say that they are the same religion. Take for example the Catholic Church. Prior to the 1960's I believe, they did not accept other religions are valid. Now they accept that there could be salvation in other faiths. Would you say that is the same religion?

The most important factor to a religion is endurance. To hold a society together and build a civilization by doing so, it has to last. That is why religions are rigid, closed ways of thinking systems of belief. Our secular belief system is only a few centuries old and it is already failing to keep the world together and solve mounting over-population/declining resources problems.

All successful mainstream religions have a core of belief, their theology. Christianity's theology is the same all the way back to Peter and Paul. That core of belief always answers the following questions"

What is our origin?

What is our goal"

What moral means must we use so we can function together to achieve it?

and what stands in our way?

All other questions a religion answers can change and are relatively superfulous. The answers to the question form a self-consistent whole that results in a closed system of thinking that can spread---providing the answers are advanced for the times. If they are, they spread.

[six7s]

I have a feeling the answer to your question is "No". But I can't answer your question because I can't understand your analogy.

That suggest, to me, that you don't understand what you wrote in the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4269031#post4269031) that I parodied

When a brand (whether its the Catholic Church, the Ford Motor Company or Kentucky Fried Chicken) repositions itself in the market, it remains the same businessTake for example the Catholic Church. Prior to the 1960's I believe, they did not accept other religions are valid. Now they accept that there could be salvation in other faiths. Would you say that is the same religion?Yes. Of course. The religion (manufactured product) of the RC Church in the 960s, the 1960s and (maybe) the 2960s is, was and will be Christianity and no amount of marketing hype or political spin can change that.

Likewise, the Ford Motor Company continues to manufacture vehicles and - despite a name change to hide the term fried - KFC still sells fast food to slow people

For the RC Church to become a different religion, the Vatican would have to not only diversify (e.g. suck up to the competition) to the point of absurdity, it would also have to renounce Christ; something that will surely serve to boost trade in all the Après-Ski bars in Hades

[charles brough]

The question of what constitutes a 'successful religion' is not something I find easy to answer. Religions often start out one way and kind of evolve as they go. If you asked me what the goal of a given religion was, I'd have to ask about the time frame.

Religions adapt to changing conditions if they can do so without contradicting their own theology. The question of goals which is a basic one in the theological core of every religion is always unchanging. In Christianity, it has always been to suffer through Armageddon and be saved by the Return of Christ. This same goal is only slightly different in Islam and Judaism. The goal of Hinduism is reincarnation. In East Asian Marxism, it is still a communist utopia and the withering away of the state even though they have adapted temporarily to our secular humanist economic system as an expedient until they can react back and re-emphasize their old goals again ("Religious Reaction!". The communist belief is what holds the Marxist Party together and enables the Marxist state to function. It is based upon the Marxist religion.

Religion" is a type of belief system and while its beliefs evolve from one to the next, its function never changes. It is to bind us into societies and without that, society and civilization cannot and never have functioned. We just need a better such belief system than the Marxists can supply---now that Secular Humanism is proving to be failing.

[charles brough]

Religions which most effectively address the common human concerns of:

1. What happens after death?

2. Where do we come from?

3. Where are we going?

4. Are we alone in the universe?

5. What is our status in the universe?

6. What is the purpose of life?

....appear to be the most successful. I combine #3 and #6 as "our goal." #5 is answered by racist religions, such as Nazism was, always as "superior." Most successful religions do not answer that one. Their successful because they are universal brotherhood faiths.

#4 is an interesting addition there. The old faiths include "gods" and "spirits" but our modern world asks the same thing! #i is important to the individual but is not now needed as part of a successful religion any more than is the belief in "spirits."

[LarianLeQuella]

Do religions have a common form?

Yeah, they're all bunk.

QFT!

[articulett]

Religions which most effectively address the common human concerns of:

1. What happens after death?

2. Where do we come from?

3. Where are we going?

4. Are we alone in the universe?

5. What is our status in the universe?

6. What is the purpose of life?

....appear to be the most successful.

Yes, and they do this by making stuff up... and telling you not to question it. Unfortunately none of them agree with each other which makes them a poor bet regarding the truth that is the same for everyone. Moreover, it's quite possible that the questions themselves are pointless. There is no evidence for ANY divine truths but lots of people who claim to have such.

That's what religions have in common.

That's what separates methodological naturalism from faith-- (or what's true from what's woo.)

[Kopji]

Religions adapt to changing conditions if they can do so without contradicting their own theology.
I have trouble finding the meaning of this assertion. Religions adapt by changing their theology until there is no contradiction.

The question of goals which is a basic one in the theological core of every religion is always unchanging.

I would ask for an example of this, but you provided one.

In Christianity, it has always been to suffer through Armageddon and be saved by the Return of Christ.

This could only be true if we ignored Gnosticism as a form of Christianity. Also, how does that assertion match with pre, post, and 'a' millennialism beliefs? The assertion seems biased to a very narrow and exclusive definition of Christianity.

This same goal is only slightly different in Islam and Judaism. The goal of Hinduism is reincarnation.

What is the goal? Reincarnation does not seem like a goal, but something more thought of as a means.

In East Asian Marxism, it is still a communist utopia and the withering away of the state even though they have adapted temporarily to our secular humanist economic system as an expedient until they can react back and re-emphasize their old goals again ("Religious Reaction!". The communist belief is what holds the Marxist Party together and enables the Marxist state to function. It is based upon the Marxist religion.

I see no real difference between a secular ideology and religions that rely on historicism.

Religion" is a type of belief system and while its beliefs evolve from one to the next, its function never changes. It is to bind us into societies and without that, society and civilization cannot and never have functioned. We just need a better such belief system than the Marxists can supply---now that Secular Humanism is proving to be failing.
I just don't see the need for 'belief systems', secular or religious.

[arthwollipot]

Support from a major political leader.I concur. Christianity would not be what it is today if it weren't for Constantine.

I think virulent religious memes spread similar to chain letters--

You are promised great rewards for spreading the message and threatened if you disobey or fail to pass along the "good word".If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars. If you don't, he'll kick the **** out of you.

[six7s]

5. What is our status in the universe?#5 is answered by racist religions, such as Nazism was, always as "superior." Most successful religions do not answer that one. Most?Well... if you ignore the Abrahamic big three... maybe...

Please name five of the "most successful religions" that meet your criteria

[charles brough]

I have trouble finding the meaning of this assertion. Religions adapt by changing their theology until there is no contradiction.

Religions can change to meet new needs as long as the change does not involve contadicting their core of belief or theology. That is why East Asian Marxism, for example, calls their mercantilist economy "socialism."

This could only be true if we ignored Gnosticism as a form of Christianity. Also, how does that assertion match with pre, post, and 'a' millennialism beliefs? The assertion seems biased to a very narrow and exclusive definition of Christianity.

To make sense of history and show how evolution is evolving human society, I have to be able to define what a mainstream society is. I define it functionally. It is a type of ideology capable of bonding people into a mainstream society. In order to bond people into such huge conglomerates of people and for a long time, it has to have a really appealing and advanced(for the age in which it spreads) belief system. That means it has to have really appealing and effective answers to the 4 questions of origin, goals, morals and what stands in our way. All the rest of the mythology of the faith is less important. It is geared to side with and be consistent with the core---and thus creates a closed way of thinking---but the rest can be somewhat flexible to meet new needs as long as it does not contradict the core. This is what has enabled mainstream religions to last so long. The first mainstream religion (the hunting and cave art system of the Cro-Magnon) apparently lasted some 30,000 years. The Egyptian faith lasted three thousand years. They are lasting less and less each time now.

Our civilization was based on Catholicism. It is what brought us to the Age of Enlightenment and the flowering of our culture and the age of science that followed. Gnosticism and the many other variations of the old faith as well as liberal Christians and others are examples of the splintering of the old faith.

All this re-interpreting of key words enables them to have an explicit meaning so they can be used less inaccurately. It enables a picture of what is happening in history and why civilizations rise and fall.

[/QUOTE]What is the goal? Reincarnation does not seem like a goal, but something more thought of as a means. [/QUOTE]

Compared to Christian millenialism, it seem pathetic! Hinduism is hard to define as it is so old and hence divided. Some Hindus sects have more gloriious goals, but every Hindu describes his religion differently than all the others.

I see no real difference between a secular ideology and religions that rely on historicism..

Social science theory is a form of rank speculation because the words are defined in so many ways. I don't do that. I see any new ideology that comes in and becomes part of the ideological bond of an old society as "secular." In other words, the philosophy of Buddha was a secular ideology to Hinduism. So, in that sense, Marxism is a religion but not a secular belief system.

[QUOTE]I just don't see the need for 'belief systems', secular or religious.
But your very thinking and that of everyone in this forum is shaped by Secular Humanism. It is the way everyone here thinks. Is it the absolute, eternal "Truth?" It is a belief system! Even science is not "Truth" but MORE ACCURATE theory. Social science that is taught in our schools is Secular Humanism, an ideology.

Religions serve the evolutionary function of binding people into larger groups than we evolved to live in, so since Marxism does that in East Asia, it is also a religion. Religion is a specific, function system and is only associated with "spirits" because until now people did not know of any better way to account for what happens.

[arthwollipot]

I got this far:

To make sense of history and show how evolution is evolving human society, I have to be able to define what a mainstream society is. I define it functionally. It is a type of ideology capable of bonding people into a mainstream society.

[articulett]

I got this far:


Try Sapolsky on this very topic... very coherent and enlightening.

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/12/robert_sapolsky_on_religion.php

[arthwollipot]

No, I was more referring to the circular nature of the statement:

"I define mainstream society as something that can create mainstream society".

[six7s]

Like it or not, that circular nature is at the core of what we call 'normal'

Normal is what normal does what normal is

Rinse

Repeat

And around we go, past mores to morals to norms and back to normal :D

[charles brough]

No, I was more referring to the circular nature of the statement:

"I define mainstream society as something that can create mainstream society".
It looks quite clear to me that I said a mainstream religion is what is able to create a mainstream society. In other words, "society" is the bond of "religion" in the mainstream. Out of the mainstream are all the religions and sects of religion that do not comprise the ideological foundation of a society---such as Mormonism, Scientology, Reverend Moon's system etc.

If you use the terms the old way, interpreting social science and history stays cluttered with religious and secular compromises and the evolution of societies and the explanation why we still have religions remains obscured.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[arthwollipot]

No, you clearly said:

To make sense of history and show how evolution is evolving human society, I have to be able to define what a mainstream society is. I define it functionally. It is a type of ideology capable of bonding people into a mainstream society.(Italics added)

If this was a simple misstatement - a slip of the keyboard, as it were, then we have no problem.

[charles brough]

No, you clearly said:

(Italics added)

If this was a simple misstatement - a slip of the keyboard, as it were, then we have no problem.

Yes! I obviously miss-stated what I meant! Thanks for noticing it!:boxedin:

I meant to say that the "mainstream" is that part of the world where the main, the largest and most advanced societies compete. It is somewhat comparable to an animal breeding ground. It is where social evolution occurs. It is where the main societies bonded by the most successful religions form the most advanced civilization for a particular time. The mainstream began where humans moved out of Africa, spread to the Near East and then filled up the rest of the Old World. A separate main stream started in the New World later and ended merging with the rest after the Spanish invasion.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[arthwollipot]

What constitutes the "most advanced" societies? What are the criteria for "advancement"?

[charles brough]

What constitutes the "most advanced" societies? What are the criteria for "advancement"?

Depends upon the goal. We have an autonomous or swarm-theory "goal" of population increased survival security that characterises all life. That translates in us into a goal of more accurate science and technology-enabled geographic expansion. What we need is a new world-view and way-of-thinking that can work around the ultimate consequences of that swarm-theory autonomous goal because it has already run us out of space and cause us to face a catastrophic population crash.

The way we get around that is to include colonizing the universe as our social-cultural-religious goal and the limiting of population increase here on Earth.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[Darth Rotor]

Question
Do Religions have a common form?
Answer:
Yes, circular

:cool:



That punny geometric pith was begging to show up. Art and Six were on the right track, but not pithily inclined at the time.
No, I was more referring to the circular nature of the statement:

"I define mainstream society as something that can create mainstream society".
Like it or not, that circular nature is at the core of what we call 'normal'

Normal is what normal does what normal is

Rinse

Repeat

And around we go, past mores to morals to norms and back to normal :D
The way we get around that is to include colonizing the universe as our social-cultural-religious goal and the limiting of population increase here on Earth.
Colonizing the universe

As we discussed before, this needs a hell of a breakthrough on the science end.

Failing that:

Limiting of population incerase

How to go about doing that is a tricky business, yes? I hear famine and war do a decent job. Maybe for the survival of the human species, more killing needs to go on, and when starvation rears its ugly head, it is allowed to happen until the land/population fit is better. (Gruesome thought, yes it is.) The above seems counterintuitive, and is certainly less efficient (and includes significantly more negative energy) than more widespread use of family planning, but there you have it.

Charles, as an academic exercise, do you have an optimal planet population in mind?

Two billion?

Four billion?

Six billion?

Nine billion?

How does one arrive at such a figure? What are your entering assumptions?

DR

[charles brough]

Charles, as an academic exercise, do you have an optimal planet population in mind?

Two billion?

Four billion?

Six billion?

Nine billion?

How does one arrive at such a figure? What are your entering assumptions?

DR
Unfortunately, it is not so easy as targeting a number. Population growth cannot be stopped by birth control but has to take generations to just to level off. And the amount of science and technology available makes a big difference in how many we can sustain here on Earth. You know all this but were hoping I didn't?

What concerns me is that there is a 40 year Religious Reaction trend here in the US that keeps growing worse even as we experience short reverse-reaction periods as we are now. The over all trend began with a reaction against the Hippy movement among other things. Anyway, if it keeps on, and I feel sure it will, then we will begin to lose science. Then, we will really begin to feel the pollution and shortagesl

[RandFan]

The over all trend began with a reaction against the Hippy movement among other things. You crack me up dude. :D

Damn hippies. I'm half tempted to change my user name to "Little Eichman".

[articulett]

We are beyond a carrying capacity right now according to Paul Ehrich and Jared Diamond.

zDtijlH8Yq4&feature

And religion is part of the problem... Utah just surpassed Nevada as the fastest growing state due to birth rates... (Nevada it was due to immigration)

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705272335,00.html

[RandFan]

We are beyond a carrying capacity right now according to Paul Ehrich and Jared Diamond.

zDtijlH8Yq4&feature

And religion is part of the problem... Utah just surpassed Nevada as the fastest growing state due to birth rates... (Nevada it was due to immigration)

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705272335,00.html Hey art,

There is a potential for trouble but I think we need to temperate that a bit. First let me say I'm a huge Diamond fan and I don't think there is any reason to dismiss the concern out of hand. However the fear of overpopulation is not knew and past forecasts had predicted that there would be mass starvation in the world at this time. Julian Simon had a great debate and bet over those predictions.

Some of the claims made in the video I found a bit dubious. The bit about using up all of the suns energy in 60 years being one of those. I'd like to know the basis for that.

In any event, I work as an inspector and auditor and I often inspect and audit farms. I work from the southern tip of the San Joaquin valley to Phoenix Arizona. Though most of my work is in and around Bakersfield. One of the things that simply amazes me is how much fertile land we do not use. One of the farms I have inspected BTW is a huge farm in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Do a flyover using google earth of California and the Mid West to see what I mean.

Now, to be sure there are some very serious problems with scaling up the farms. Water being chief among them. But those problems are not insurmountable.

We should address these issues and I agree that religion is a real factor when it comes to population increase but let's not be chicken little. As Julian Simon used to say, man's greatest asset is his mind and ability to solve problems.

I don't think we are anywhere near carrying capacity but, hey, I've been wrong before and I concede I'm no expert. :)

[AkuManiMani]

We are beyond a carrying capacity right now according to Paul Ehrich and Jared Diamond.

zDtijlH8Yq4&feature

And religion is part of the problem... Utah just surpassed Nevada as the fastest growing state due to birth rates... (Nevada it was due to immigration)

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705272335,00.html

The thing is that a relatively small percentage of the world's human population is responsible for much of the energy/resource consumption on earth. If i remember correctly the United States alone (which comprises about 5% of the world population) is responsible for nearly a fourth of all the energy consumed. Much of the environmental degradation around the world is caused by the rapacious economic demands of nations like ours.

Ironically, first world nations, like the US, have the lowest birthrates (prolific Mormons not withstanding). If it weren't for immigration the US would be experiencing the negative population growth that many other first world nations face. As far as I can see, the issue of population is manage able; the primary problem appears to be economic and sociological.


Even assuming that the world's environmental ills are caused strictly by overpopulation do you have any real evidence that the nebulous boogey man of religion that you loathe so much is a significant contributor?

[articulett]

Most of the energy we use on this planet comes from the sun or did at one time...all of our plants and animals and so forth... this is true for all our fossil fuels... and wood... and the food we eat (energy for our bodies), so I think that is what is meant. It takes a lot of energy to raise each human being--all the resources they use take energy... the landfill the land the food the products they use... this is especially true in first world nations. Exponential growth cannot go on forever, and some point we have to stop and sustain or nature does it for us. All populations have that issue. We are just a little better at stalling the day of reckoning.

But just as you can't keep adding people to your home... you can't keep increasing the population on a finite planet. There is carrying capacity that maximizes the benefits for all those alive... and as you exceed that, people start to war for resources, and nature starts to do her own culling. In any case, the population growth rates must slow down or nature will compel the process. Infinite growth is not a possibility and we humans as a whole don't seem very good at limiting our own populations.

But children cannot give back... they are dependent upon the adults of society to provide... how many extra children are you willing to care for when their parents can't or won't? How much are your children willing to give up so that more children can be born? How many jobs for these children will be available? How many of these new childrens' children will have enough resources... and from whom?

Having a decent standard of living for most people requires that people limit their populations. I don't know how dire the situation is. And I hope that Jared Diamond is being alarmist. But I think it's important to make people aware of the issues before the problem become worse. All new people take resources, jobs, space, food, and energy from the people already here. Due to longer life spans we are replacing ourselves far faster than we are dying out. Some people will suffer because of this. Some people who probably would have been better off not being born at all.

When religions compel large families, no birth control and are against abortion, they further a problem. Society has deemed that we will take care of those who don't have parents to take care of them. We take care of the handicapped and the imprisoned. How big a burden are the contributors of society willing to accept. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to curtail their reproduction so that there are not so many.

I think that governments should give incentives to curtail birth rates amongst those who get government assistance. If you want extra welfare or early release from prison, get sterilized to ensure that those paying taxes won't be forced to pay for your progeny as well. In fact, I think governments should pay for abortions of those who want them and use the fetuses for stem cells and medical research.

I'm all for taking care of the people (and animals) that exist... I'm not for encouraging there to be an ever increasing amount of such people. I think sustainability requires limiting population growth. I suspect we are beyond our most comfortable carrying capacity as it is. This is an issue our descendants will be forced to deal with and religion ideologies don't help.

We have no business encouraging life that we are not willing to help raise. It takes a village...

[articulett]

I don't loathe religion... that's your straw man, Aku. I don't like the fact that it claims "higher truths" for it's edicts. I am from a Catholic family... Catholics are well known for their large families ... they are directly responsible for the creation of large poor families all over the world--not to mention the spread of AIDS due to their preaching against condoms.

The Pope lives in riches as these poor suffer. I have worked in special ed and fostered many animals as well-- I'm more than willing to do my share. However, I think it's well known that the largest families are almost always large families due to religion. Name a large family that is not. The whole fundamentalist Quivers movement that the infamous Duggers belong to is just such a family. When you study exponential growth, you understand just how compelling this problem is.

One person can produce hundreds of descendants before they die-- that is, they are replacing themselves a hundred-fold. How many people can we afford to have do that? How many are you willing to support with your taxes or your work or your time or your energy? How much are you willing to give up to make sure all these kids are properly cared for, educated, fed, and have the necessary medical care.

It seems that those who encourage such growth are often the very people who are willing to give up nothing at all.

But I am going to put you on ignore aku mani... because "three straw men and you're out". I won't fight your delusions about my motives or your extrapolations about what I actually said. You create those in your head so you can feel good. I won't participate in such masturbatory exercises. I don't loathe religion. I am quite certain that religious fecundity is part of the problem. I don't feel religions are responsible or correct when they tell their members that god wants them to "go forth and multiply".

I teach their kids... I teach their pregnant teens... I do more than my share... but I don't have endless energy and enthusiasm and resources.

[AkuManiMani]

Arti, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've stated before that your profession is in reproductive counseling. As a specialist in that field are you familiar with any studies on the effect of religious beliefs on population growth in the first world and/or in developing nations?

If there are any that you're aware of could you please provide some links. I very curious about the subject and would like some solid data to inform my opinions a little more :)

[AkuManiMani]

But I am going to put you on ignore aku mani... because "three straw men and you're out". I won't fight your delusions about my motives or your extrapolations about what I actually said.

That's rather unfortunate. If that were a universal practice of everyone on this forum you would not have any people with differing opinions to dialogue with. Oh well /shrug

[RandFan]

Exponential growth cannot go on forever, and some point we have to stop and sustain or nature does it for us. All populations have that issue. We are just a little better at stalling the day of reckoning.Good post. No, it exponential growth cannot go on forever but then it's not a given that it is even expected to do that See the UN's World Population To 2300 (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf) (a PDF file). Start at page 15 for long term rates.

I'm not sure that it's fair to simply state that "we are just a little better at stalling the day of reckoning." Our ability to solve serious and long term problems have resulted in Paul Ehrlich's predictions of famine in the 70's and 80's to be wrong. Very wrong. Any famines that did happen were by and large political.

BTW: The bet I told you about was between Simon and Ehrlich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager). You can argue that Simon was only right in the short run but there is no question that Ehrlich was wrong.

Again, I'm not saying that the day that Ehrlich would be proven right will never happen. Not at all.

[articulett]

I don't know much about Ehrlich and I have Diamonds book, Collapse, but it was too depressing to read.

I don't know enough to know how bad it is... I teach teens, and I often teach teens that were born to teens and who end up pregnant themselves. I teach a high hispanic/Catholic population-- many immigrants. Nevada used to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the Nation, but I think Texas is beating us now. There is a strong correlation between the red states, religiousity and high teen pregnancy...

Educated people and more prosperous countries do tend to limit their families, but that means that it's the poor and less intelligent that have far more children on average... and the very religious.

If nothing else... I think being more responsible about encouraging use of birth control and family planning is important. It is probably the number one thing poorer countries could do to raise their prosperity... but it's often religion that keeps them from doing so or from learning the best practices for achieving such.

The most virulent religions do proffer the "go forth and multiply" meme-- and "god won't give you more than you can handle" in addition to proselytizing and indoctrinating from birth. They tend to discourage birth control and abortion while encouraging the kind of ignorance that makes unwanted pregnancy more likely.

In the families I work with... when a teen becomes pregnant it's the grandmother and aunts who end up endlessly raising the latest crops of kids... this is even more true when I worked with delinquents.

I think it's nearly miraculous when a mother of many can do a great job or teen can do so without the support of extended family. Nobody will thank these mothers for the extraordinary amount of giving they will be compelled to do--

I've seen a lot of women nearly go insane from giving and giving to the problems that they created... like Andrea Yates-- of course few go off the deep end like that. But when they give up or just can't do it any more, then they get all the blame... there is no gratitude for the years they gave up their life to care for these children.

I know a Mormon couple who married young when I did and started having kids right away... 6 in all... and they were "super Mormons" but then the woman just kind of went insane... had a bunch of lovers and finally divorced and remarried and now her older kids hate her. I waited to have a child... and I only had one and then I was widowed young. But I don't think my life has been harder. I wonder if I'd have gone similarly crazy trying to be so perfect and having kid after kid and giving up so much of my own life and my own thoughts. And they aren't grateful for all she gave... they are just angry because she couldn't continue to give forever without something coming back, I guess. I don't know. It seems like there is no way for her to win.

I only know the story through the grapevine. But the truth is, I think having a bunch of kids --especially before you've lived much-- is a recipe for a "nervous breakdown"... I think those who do it successfully are amazing... unsung heroes... and now this woman's family (who are both part of large Mormon clans) are stuck helping raise her brood as she goes through her ordeal... not stuck-- but they feel compelled-- these are their grandchildren... when it's your family and you are a good person, you give all you can and hope for some relief (like with your sister, Randfan)... but there is no one to thank you-- just people to make you feel guilt when you can't give any more.

So I think about that. I don't know that I could have kept sane and wonderful and responsible while trying to raise 6 kids... I had a hard time as an adult woman with enough money to raise my son by myself after his father died. It was hard. I am often glad that I didn't have more kids.

I wonder how many women throughout the world buy into this notion of a large loving family only to regret it. I've heard and seen too many stories to think it's rare. So even if people didn't limit family size for the health of the planet-- they ought to consider doing it for the health and happiness of the women who will end up caring for these kids.

It must be devastating not to be able to provide for your kid. In Africa young women are forced to do so. Just as we fix our pets and understand that we cannot let them breed with abandon-- for their happiness and our own... we do need to teach our fellow humans to do the same. Few people grieve for the children they never had... but many people grieve for the children they have.

[AkuManiMani]

Good post. No, it exponential growth cannot go on forever but then it's not a given that it is even expected to do that See the UN's World Population To 2300 (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf) (a PDF file). Start at page 15 for long term rates.

I'm not sure that it's fair to simply state that "we are just a little better at stalling the day of reckoning." Our ability to solve serious and long term problems have resulted in Paul Ehrlich's predictions of famine in the 70's and 80's to be wrong. Very wrong. Any famines that did happen were by and large political.

Which makes me suspect that the vast majority of environmental ills the world faces are probably, by and large, due to political/administrative mismanagement and corruption. Many of the countries in which there have been famines in the passed century have sufficient natural resources to sustain their populations.

I suppose the main question is whether or how it's possible to have an ecologically sustainable world economy while still maintaining a decent-high standard of living for the world in general.

edit: Erm...does this discussion count as a derail? O_o

[bokonon]

I think being more responsible about encouraging use of birth control and family planning is important. It is probably the number one thing poorer countries could do to raise their prosperity... but it's often religion that keeps them from doing so or from learning the best practices for achieving such.

Hmmm, I speculated in the "Megachurch Nativity" thread that most of the people chuckling over that death didn't have children themselves, and now I see you do. I'm surprised.

FWIW, I agree with you that stabilizing or even decreasing population would be a good thing, and consider it evil for modern-day religions to continue to encourage women to breed like dogs.

I'm glad you have me on ignore, so you won't see this and I can continue to pummel you mercilessly (blindfolded!) in the other thread.

[RandFan]

I wonder how many women throughout the world buy into this notion of a large loving family only to regret it. I've heard and seen too many stories to think it's rare. So even if people didn't limit family size for the health of the planet-- they ought to consider doing it for the health and happiness of the women who will end up caring for these kids. My wife and I were just talking about this. Mormon culture has that ever popular notion "the lord will provide". They don't necassarily use that particular phrase though. However I've seen some really awful situations. I think women should have the right to say no to large families. Many don't have the emotional stability.

I'm really against the culture of barefoot and pregnant. Many women want more out of life and they should have the right to choose how many children to have if any at all.

I honestly think it is better for society and individuals to have smaller famalies and again, I don't dismiss Ehrlich out of hand. I'm no expert either. The sky might not be falling but if there is a tipping point and we haven't reached it yet we would sure be foolish to squander the opportunity we do have to make changes.

[RandFan]

Hmmm, I speculated in the "Megachurch Nativity" thread that most of the people chuckling over that death didn't have children themselves, and now I see you do. I'm surprised.

FWIW, I agree with you that stabilizing or even decreasing population would be a good thing, and consider it evil for modern-day religions to continue to encourage women to breed like dogs. It's interesting because Mormon theology actually has propaganda that puts forward the idea that there is a limited amount of time to bring to earth all of the spirits in heaven. There was even a famous Mormon musical that decried the idea of population control. It was called Saturday's Warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday's_Warrior).

[articulett]

And Mormon women often feel like they are "lesser" if they don't have at least three... that's been my experience. My friend specifically told me that. But I know a Catholic family that just had 4 babies... all when both parents were in the upper 30's and early 40's-- it sounds ghastly to me. They have a lot of money. But they did it BECAUSE of the churches teachings. And the women is overwhelmed. I doubt she'll recommend that her daughter do the same.

When they do studies, they find that the happiest families tend to have 1 or 2 children... and the happiness does not increase with each additional child beyond that... it's more work and less happiness on average. I remember once reading a study asking women if they had to do it over again would they have children, and a surprising number of them said no... or that they'd have fewer. And it's not that they don't love their kids. I think most mothers would give up their own life to save their child.

It's very hard for a woman to be happy if any of her kids are unhappy, ill, having problems, dying, etc. It's probably true for many men too. They try so hard to do what's good and right because they think the hard work here will pay off in some next life. And then they NEED to believe in that next life to make it through this one.

I think humans will rally on this population thing... nature will do the job if we don't. Probably the best thing we can do for our planet is to control our population so that caretakers and those that need care are balanced and there's enough food, jobs, education, medical care, etc. for everyone. Many of the worlds caretakers don't have anyone to take care of them should they need care.

Caretakers have so much guilt when things aren't perfect... they get all the blame when things go wrong and there's very little thanks for a job well done. They are so often judged by those who give far less. So I don't think it's just an environmental issues... I think it's a quality of life issue.

In a lot of ways, I think religions create the problems that they, then, provide the solution for. They make themselves necessary. They tell you life is a test and that you can suffer forever if you don't pass the test. They tell you to spread the word and go forth and multiply and have faith and trust that god will provide. When he doesn't, it's because you didn't have enough faith or you didn't believe enough or because "god works in mysterious ways". And you can't take faith away from someone who has come to need it. And you can't teach them to think ahead when they are trusting a non existent entity and his nonexistent plan.

[articulett]

I think about those polygamous clans. Those young women with all those kids. You can't take away their faith, because there is no place in the world for an uneducated young women with 8 kids.... they need their "sister wives" and their faith.

Each pregnancy makes more work for her--makes her need her faith more--makes her less likely to be a participant in the outside world. I don't think it's right at all... but at what point do you step in... and when is it too late? I think the deference towards faith has a lot of long term consequences, but I hardly have an answer. The more secular societies seem to be doing rather well. There are leading the world on alternative energy sources too.

Randfan, you'll have to let me know about the Zuckerman book-- the interview with him on Secular Nation podcast was excellent.

[six7s]

Probably the best thing we can do for our planet is to control our population so that caretakers and those that need care are balanced and there's enough food, jobs, education, medical care, etc. for everyone.Please, do explain cos, knowing you as I do, I'm sincerely bewildered by this - and I know that you know etc that I'm sincere when I ask: do you really mean the planet or H sapiens sapiens?

My take on it is that the planet (and life on it) will get by just fine no matter what we do... Sure, there might be a hiccough or two around the time that we annihilate all species more 'advanced' than amoeba, bacteria and telemarketers... But a few billion years or so later, everything will be just tickety-boo, won't it?

[RandFan]

I think about those polygamous clans. Those young women with all those kids. You can't take away their faith, because there is no place in the world for an uneducated young women with 8 kids.... they need their "sister wives" and their faith.

Each pregnancy makes more work for her--makes her need her faith more--makes her less likely to be a participant in the outside world. I don't think it's right at all... but at what point do you step in... and when is it too late? I think the deference towards faith has a lot of long term consequences, but I hardly have an answer. The more secular societies seem to be doing rather well. There are leading the world on alternative energy sources too.

Randfan, you'll have to let me know about the Zuckerman book-- the interview with him on Secular Nation podcast was excellent. I promise. :)

[articulett]

Please, do explain cos, knowing you as I do, I'm sincerely bewildered by this - and I know that you know etc that I'm sincere when I ask: do you really mean the planet or H sapiens sapiens?

My take on it is that the planet (and life on it) will get by just fine no matter what we do... Sure, there might be a hiccough or two around the time that we annihilate all species more 'advanced' than amoeba, bacteria and telemarketers... But a few billion years or so later, everything will be just tickety-boo, won't it?

Just us homo saps. I'm a speciesist, it's true.

The planet does not care whether we exist or not. It will go on just fine until our sun consumes it many billions of years hence.

Thanks for reminding me. I just like to think that maybe I can leave it a little better for the journey I took upon it. :)

[AkuManiMani]

Please, do explain cos, knowing you as I do, I'm sincerely bewildered by this - and I know that you know etc that I'm sincere when I ask: do you really mean the planet or H sapiens sapiens?

My take on it is that the planet (and life on it) will get by just fine no matter what we do... Sure, there might be a hiccough or two around the time that we annihilate all species more 'advanced' than amoeba, bacteria and telemarketers... But a few billion years or so later, everything will be just tickety-boo, won't it?

Well, it may well be that the biosphere will eventually get along just fine after then extinction of 'advanced' critters like us but it seems a safe bet that that will be a moot point billions of years down the line. Seems that if some advanced species doesn't spread life off of this rock before our sun gets all red a bloaty all known like in the universe is doomed to fry :covereyes

[six7s]

All living organisms of teh Universe unite! We're here for a good time, not a long time :D

[articulett]

It's interesting because Mormon theology actually has propaganda that puts forward the idea that there is a limited amount of time to bring to earth all of the spirits in heaven. There was even a famous Mormon musical that decried the idea of population control. It was called Saturday's Warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday's_Warrior).

For the record... I have Bokonen on ignore for his straw man as noted in the quote. I think you know me well enough to know the difference between chuckling over irony and chuckling over death.

(I consider his straw man a dishonest characterization of me in order to feel better about himself and blind himself to his biases.) Fortunately, I think enough people here know me to understand when someone's characterization is dishonest, but it does piss me off. I have to put them on ignore lest I say what I really think of them.

[bokonon]

For the record... I have Bokonen on ignore for his straw man as noted in the quote.
That's real interesting, since RandFan didn't quote the part where I said you had me on ignore. I guess you must have psychic abilities, I can't think of any other explanation.