Origin of Religion - Part III: Rules
People, living together, need rules. Period. I’m sure there are a couple of anarchists in the audience who would disagree, but I’m equally sure they would be unable to produce an example of an anarchic society that functioned for more than a short time. Religion is very good at providing rules. Some religions, like Judaism, are more about rules than anything else. Others, like Taoism, have few hard and fast “thou-shalt-nots.” Either way, adherents to a faith alter their behavior on some level to meet the requirements of that faith. In the early phases of civilization, religion cut down on people killing each other and other objectionable behaviors, so religion was beneficial to a civilization’s survival. The trait persisted. So, if people need rules to live happily together, why are religious rules any worse than secular laws? There are three reasons.
First, religious rules tend to be black and white. Don’t do this. End of discussion. However, secular laws allow for exceptions and interpretation. Thou shalt not kill. Well, that sounds good, but what about self-defense? What about war? What if I shoot someone who’s taken a hostage to save the hostage’s life? In these situations, maybe I shalt kill. Maybe I even shouldst kill. A jury would probably agree with me, but a god? It’s tough to say when you can’t ask him. Maybe it would be OK, but all he gave me to work with was “Thou shalt not kill.” I have to take him at his word.
Second, religious laws, in theory, don’t change. In practice, sometimes they do. I don’t know too many Catholics these days who avoid meat on Fridays. But, did god tell someone he’d changed his mind? Did a burning bush give the Pope an update? “Hey, listen. I’m holding firm on birth control and woman priests, but I’ll let people start off the weekend with a burger.” The world changes, and the rules should change with it. God, if he existed, shouldn’t have to. An omniscient being who changes his mind is clearly an idiot; just because you know things, doesn’t mean you’re smart. The fact that Yahweh does exactly this at several points in the Old Testament will be saved for another post.
Finally, rules are only effective if you believe in the consequences of breaking them. If you tell me not to do something because I’ll go to hell or be reborn as a sea slug if I do it, that’s not going to sway me. However, I believe very strongly in prisons. I’ve seen them. There are cops patrolling the streets, but I haven’t spotted any angels with billy clubs out there. So, once you have even a couple of non-believers in your midst, you need some this-worldly enforcement. You can achieve this with a theocratic police force or an Inquisition, but that doesn’t get you past the first two points. You can only get past those by having scriptures written like the US criminal code (Confucianism comes close) and having a direct line of verbal communication with the divine. That or hypocrisy. Hypocrisy’s easier.
So I’ll take the Constitution over a Bible, a cop over a lightning bolt and Riker’s Island over hell, thanks. In the modern world, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s a cop, not a cleric.
~I AM~
June 5th, 2005 at at 1:45 pm
Very true. Religious rules used to probably be quite handy, especially to the ruling elite. Assume I’m a serf stuck in poverty. In fact, I’m so poor that I may die of starvation. I’m thinking to myself “I need to do what’s best for my survival and steal some food from the king!”. But then religion tells me that I shouldn’t, because if I don’t, I will be rewarded even greater in heaven. So sure, I’ll let myself die now to help myself later. I’m still following my own self-interest, but now (again luckily for the ruling elite) my self-interest is no longer at odds with their self-interest. I believe it was Napoleon who said “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich”, and I think that idea was one of the motivators behind the origin of religion, or at least the continued use of it.
June 5th, 2005 at at 3:37 pm
Greetings. Love the blog! I’ve referenced it to many friends and find it refreshing and insightful. You capture the frustraited spirit of the un-believer in today’s world. Although I am myself an agnostic, I find atheists to be much more hospitable then theists. I found some online writings trying to refute Athiesm. Even though it’s pretty shotty, it has a few points, and was gonna give you the link so you could read it and perhaps comment on it/critique it.
http://www.puretolerance.com/index.php
June 5th, 2005 at at 5:23 pm
Some of the points you made here I was trying to make on the Raving Atheist. Most atheists that commented on that topic still refused to admit that religion was quite possibly a necessary (albeit not good) part of our evolution. Is it a matter of pride? I suppose most of them think I am wrong to give religion any credit at all. And it is not credit that is due to religion. The idea that religion kept the poor from killing the rich is very real- and just one of the many reasons it was used and persists today. I just think some atheists feel it is wrong to give something as evil as religion credit for anything, like you’re losing groung by admitting it had a purpose. I just want to put the puzzle together. I believe if we study it long enough, there will be a sound theory of the evolution of religion. Boy does that sound like an oxymoron- The ‘evolution of religion’. I was considering that title for my book, since that is primarily what it deals with.
June 5th, 2005 at at 8:22 pm
whatsup boywonder!
I disagree with your claim of religion being necessary. You have no specificity; how was it necesary?
Popular religions throughout the history of mankind have all employed sacrifice. From self esteem, to independent thought, even to your physical body, all religions stifle the things which make a person alive and happy.
The root problem of religions is when they believe that an imaginary entity can control their fate or environment, and that they must act to appease this imaginary entities desires and insecurities. Its often coupled with the belief of an afterlife: where an imaginary life-after-death existence takes priority over this current existence.
Religion brings no code of proper conduct nor beneficial explanation of existence to benefit man, regardless of which stage of progression man happened to be at.
June 5th, 2005 at at 8:23 pm
I said benefit twice in once sentence. Whoops!
June 6th, 2005 at at 1:08 am
He’s trying to say is that in the very earliest beginings of civilization, religon helped humanity from killing the dude that stole your hunk of meat from the kill, kept men from grabbing every female he could get ahold of… Shit like that. I get it. It’s time to evolve.
June 6th, 2005 at at 1:23 am
But as we have seen time and time again, they only seem to follow the rules of the bible (or any other religious book) when it suits them. And only the portions of the book that they wish to. And only their interpretations of it when they wish to. (shrugs)
June 6th, 2005 at at 1:30 am
C Ray 86:
I’ll have a look at that site. Thanks for the link and the praise.
June 6th, 2005 at at 11:27 pm
Hi, AK. Nice to talk to you again. I’ve been trying to keep up on your blog. I know I haven’t made too many comments recently on your blog. I’m listening, though. As far as me thinking religion was necessary for civilizations, I figured you would have thought differently. AntiFaithSTL had it right in that part of the reason for the need of religion was to control even the most primative of semi-stable communities. The big reason I keep trying to drive home is that ever since we as the human species differentiated ourselves from the other animals by organized language (that is easily learnable and common to many, and expandable, i.e. sanskrit, aramaic (sp) , cuneform) and simple to complex tool-making. Basicaly, when we as humans could put words to thoughts and create ideas that could be communicated and understood by all. at this point, death was known, but not understood. Fear and ignorance of death created most every myth and superstition imagineable. That early in our history, religion WAS science. It was a natural occurence for a creature as smart as a man to create something to counter death. Indeed the spirits that haunted this world (volcanoes, earthquakes, pestilence, beasts) gave evidence to something bigger, stronger, and better than ourselves. This is mother nature. Today we have understood mother nature to be devoid of any soul or persona. That is because we have modern educations. I find it inconceivable that people that long ago could be rational about any of it. Yes, what evidence do I have? Much less than your archaeologist, or even anthropologist. It has many more holes than the fossil record, but it has not yet been proven false. That is a starting point. I need your skepticism and criticism to refine and expand my theories. AK (and everyone, really), please continue being honest. I appreciate all of your input.
June 7th, 2005 at at 1:27 am
Sorry about the last post. I’m at work and it is hard to concentrate on making a completely coherent post (grammatically and consistent in thought). Yes, I am writing a book that is in large part about why religion is here in the first place. For being something that is perceived as completely harmful and unnecessary, religion sure has a way of hanging around. That does not lend credence to its existence;however, there has to be a reason or reasons why every civilization at present has a religion. It is obvious by historical record that religion develops over time and influence. Today is a reflection of that. My project (that’s really what it is) tries to put into perspective many of the different apects of religion. It is very easy for me to go on a tangent. Religion is intertwined in most everything. And yes, I do believe religion is presently staring down a slippery slope. It seems the end of days for religion will come to pass within a few hundred years. That is being optimistic. We seem to be hard-wired to want religion. Understanding how that hard-wiring came to be is where we come to a good understanding of our brains and minds both physiogically and psychologically. We will have a firmer treatment for morality and ethics. Philosophy will have something new to think about. Either we will come to know all this, or we will know god. You know where my bet is being placed.
June 10th, 2005 at at 1:22 pm
Rules set up by me were required for the evolution of humanity. Without my rules, you wouldn’t have come as far as you have. But the rules I put in place back then were intended to kick-start the self-rule process, the process by which you’d all decide how you’re going to live together. And that’s actually moving along quite well. And to answer some questions before they’re asked, evolution is a continuous process, not a discrete step. You all know that. It has false starts and setbacks. Deal.
I’ll pose a question to you all: “What’s the next phase in the evolution of humanity?” Everyone reading this, and many, many others, have the capability to move to the next phase, to make an evolutionary leap. And there’s no shortage of clues about how to do that. Just look around a little and you’ll find them.