Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

Acme Posting wrote:
> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Acme Posting wrote:
>>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
 (Continuing discussion of religion as bad, statecraft, etc.)

> Yes, I've noticed this short memory. Soon the WWII generation will be
> gone, so we'll have to fight it over again.

I surely hope not, but it's a real (and increasing) possibility. One that
humanity will ignore at its peril!

<snip Call it "Unlearn God"-thesis?>

> Yes. Now we just have to think up a subtitle. For maximum sales I'd
> suggest something with "brain vampire" in it! But perhaps those
> wouldn't be the buyers you seek. <g>

The vampire bit was over the top, I think. You're right in pointing out that
this subject won't be fit for public consumption without being described and
argued with a great deal of sensitivity and tact.

> Seriously, why do you focus in on just the God belief? Are you not
> against religion in general, god or no god? And aren't you against
> "endless indoctrination" (tm) or unfalsifiable dogmas forced by
> various means in any form? It seemed so with your arguments against
> statecraft, propaganda, etc. (You give what I think is a great partial
> answer later below.)

Why focus on religion and the belief in "god"? - because you are right that
the (possibly) greatest scourge of (at least) Occidental society is the
sheer quantity of deliberate and oppressive indoctrination going on in the
media, all the time. Well, the answer to that lies partly in the idea that
religious indoctrination and socialization are the (historic) originators of
ALL kinds of (secular) oppressive mind control practises and schemes.
Without the socio-psychological dogmatic, indoctrinary influence of
organized religions, the secular powers of contemporary society would
(probably) face much harder resistance to and even become incapable of
employing their many oppressive and manipulative mind control schemes.
Consequently, one part of the theory is that religious forms of
indoctrination prepare the ground (in children and the young) for a (later)
broad mental conditioning to be carried out by secular social constructs (in
order to further certain political and economic agendas).

The other part of the theory has to do with the fact that religions convey a
(superficial) feeling of traditional permanency to their believers.
Organized religions are primarily historic institutions, connecting the
present with the past, the belief of parents with that of their children
across the generations, and thus religions tend very much in the minds of
believers to take on an unchangeable and eternal aspect (an illusion, of
course), something which becomes a very calming and inviting feature for
contemporaneous stressed out and economically insecure individuals, whether
living in the First or Third World. The "refuge" that is religion thus takes
on a "god"-like quality. Organized religion seems to become separate from
and superior to (scary) social reality by the apparent permanency of its
messages, practices, and rituals, thus reinforcing the conception among the
acolytes that this is a true "refuge".

This "refuge"-function is part and parcel of the basic attraction of
religions. It forms the basis of the social authority which religions are
able to assume in many matters, even the strictly secular. It is part of the
explanation why religions are so important to elites as government carrying
institutions, because the government (or other social constructs) which can
incorporate religious rationales and practises in its workings can take on
some of the moral superiority and permanency that public religious beliefs
confer on the organized religions and which are not part of the way the
public traditionally views the powers of (impermanent) secular government.
This has happened numerous times in history and still does, today. The
"infiltration" of religion into society has a definite aspect of the
subversive about it, strongly favouring any kind of authoritarian and
oppressive government and similar social construct!

In order to end the oppressive dominance of mind-bending social practices in
society, two major and difficult tasks have to be accomplished (IMO), which
together amount to "taking religion out of society" - religion being itself
a mind-bending social construct, of course. The first and most important bit
is to end the influence of religions on children and the young. This could
be achieved in the main part by making it illegal for anybody below legal
age to join an organized religion or attend its services. It would also
require a big effort on the part of educations, schools, secular
institutions to rid themselves of all the mind-bending practises that they
have undoubtedly engaged in and instead become wedded to an agenda of proper
teaching (What is proper teaching? Another big debate, at least, to get to
the bottom of that) based on high ethical standards. The object of all this
would be to reduce the impact of religions (and other mind-bending
institutions) on society's most impressionable minds, and to deny religions
the ability to carry on generational mental brain programming, as they
successfully do now. The tool would be proper a secular educational system
(private or state funded or both), dedicated to the ideals of a new
Enlightenment.

The other main task, and that's probably the most difficult one, is to
undermine the positions of organized religions. That doesn't mean banning
them or denying people their rights of religious freedom. It simply means
reducing the public's need for the (immaterial but tempting mind-bending)
products that religions offer. It means (e.g.) having proper ongoing
cultural debates on the suitability of religious practices and beliefs, of
holding religions to the same standards of behaviour that other social
constructs have to adhere to, of offering good public information about the
realities of political and economic choices which face society instead of
partisan, fragmented, and scary agitprop. On and on, most people could
probably think a lot of other similar initiatives. When viewed in such a
context it seems reasonable to me to suggest AGAIN that only through a
comprehensive and honest campaign of public religious "de-programming" (as
exemplified) combined with a concerted effort to deal with (or heal) the
basic existential fears and the resultant irrational attitudes of the larger
religious public will it become possible to seriously reduce the pervasive
and detrimental socio-psychological influence of organized religions on
society. And if that influence can be reduced, the practicality of generally
managing the public with  the (secular) oppressive tools of psychological
conditioning appear (to me) to become much more difficult and perhaps even
impossible. The public would no longer respond to agitprop in the expected
manner - they would have become "de-sensitized".

<snip>

> Those who correctly interpret history can use it to their advantage.
> Experience is "history" and is most reliable of all.

Yes, it certainly is!

<snip: Nature-culture explanation etc.>

> Sounds like standard "back to nature" to me. But I understand you mean
> "managed primitivity" (your tm). Hunting rifle or bow? Will there be a
> convenience store nearby in case I run out of Doritos? (I mean suppose
> someone freely chooses a lifestyle contrary to your vision?)

No, I don't believe it is possible to "go back to nature" in the ways that
Rousseau or Thoreau suggested. By "managed primitivity" I actually meant
something which does coexist with or remain part of a technological society,
but it has to be a society capable of striking a viable balance between
exploitation and conservation of nature and natural resources. Here's an
example or two of what a "managed primitivity" might entail.

During both World Wars it was a common policy for warring nations to
encourage their citizens to grow (some) of their own foodstuffs in their
gardens or other small plots of land. In both Russia and the former USSR
this has always been a tradition that has remained strong even with big city
populations, and it has actually turned out to be a life saver on several
recent historic occasions for huge numbers of people. This happened during
WWI, during the horrible era of War Communism, during the racist WWII, and
later on during the complete capitalist conspired Russian economic collapse
under Yeltsin.

In Germany, France, the UK and many other European nations this history of
families growing (parts of their own food) is still a strong civic
tradition, but it has naturally abated a lot with the dawn of a wasteful
Western society obsessed with mass consumption. With regard to the US, I'm
sure I've read some place that the US government encouraged individual
families and citizens to grow food in their gardens during WWII (don't know
if it happened in WWI, as the US was only party to that conflict for a short
while) and I believe that call was followed by many and proved to be quite
popular.

As far as I can tell, this is actually a very fine way for large urban
populations to engage in a recreational hobby that with proper incentives
might amount to a sort of managed primitivism. It's not impossible to
imagine that growing food for personal consumption would make people
healthier (it's good exercise and they get out more), eat healthier (fresh
vegetables - instead of eating low quality fatty burgers e.g.), acquire new
self-confidence (any successful activity does that to an individual, and
EVERYBODY can grow food if taught how), learn about nature and culture in a
dialectical way, get their own perspective on a host of contemporary issues
to do with agriculture, husbandry, management of nature etc. In other words,
such an initiative would make people more self-reliant and enable them to
form valid opinions about matters, which are now mostly beyond their ken.
I'm quite sure other, similar kinds of ideas about "managed primitivity"
might also become successful. Instead of the military draft being the only
option for national service, a nation might decide to send its young men and
women out on missions to combat soil erosion, plant trees, take care of
forests, clear up industrial pollution etc. Something that is not only a
required necessity in order to repair the damage Man has already done to the
natural World, but also in order to educate and teach the young about the
numerous vital interactions between nature and culture on which their
societies and their own lives depend. By the way, this tree-planting scheme
has been carried out by Algiers since the liberation from French colonial
rule. The French felled all the forests in the Atlas Range to the south of
the coastal regions in a act of pure vindictiveness and ecological
terrorism. Sahara has been steadily spreading north, since then. But now the
Algerians have nearly managed to reconstitute the forests, through a
communal and quite superhuman effort.

> <snip continued naturist, environmentalist perspective, got it.>
>
> Are we heading towards communism here? I see two parallels:
> commune-nature and communism-no god. But above 20 (?) people or so,
> communism stops providing incentive. So, negative incentive -> state
> -> propoganda -> right back to religion but with the state replacing
> god, not to mention it never seems to get past the implementation
> stage, and seems to fail by objective tests. Let's try free enterprise
> with a fair income redistribution ratio (20-40:1) and require
> competition, unlike in the U.S. Don't think that's ever been tried. My
> a priori is the equality principle, so democracy, freedom, equality
> under the law, etc. is axiomatic. Again, not what we have in the U.S.

Well, those are good and hard to answer questions. I don't believe that the
"Unlearn God"-doctrine calls for any specific political agenda, neither
capitalist nor communist, except in the way that by primarily counteracting
oppressive psychological practices it naturally weakens all kinds of
traditional authoritarianism in order to empower individuals, families, and
local societies. If those individuals and societies, if and when (BIG "if",
I admit!) the entirety of a nation or perhaps even a culture, manage to free
themselves from the influences of religious and other mind-bending social
constructs, what kind of changes will society then undergo as a result of
this development? What governments, institutions, social constructs will
people then invent or how will they change the old ones in order to better
handle their affairs? Quite possibly, the political alternatives that face
humanity today will appear to those (lucky and happy) future people to be
both limiting and unfit. They may have expectations of something more and
better - and they may have the ability to make such utopian ideas come true!

"Democracy, freedom, equality under the law", are very desirable goals for a
people or society to achieve, as you say. But they are hard goals. Hoping to
make them easier to reach is probably a fitting and not too ambitious
aspiration for this particular moment in time, where humanity as a whole has
to be considered in deep crisis and danger. Not that attempting to "Unlearn
God" won't be difficult. It most certainly will!

<snip>

> So, religion is the result of our neurosis caused by technological
> advance, and "managed primitivism" solves that neurosis? The first
> premise must be false. Religion predates technology, and was stronger
> without it. One could argue an inverse relationship.

No, I'd say it goes like this. Man invented all kinds of new sophisticated
ways of exploiting nature when switching from being hunter-gatherers to
farmers. At some point (unless deliberately countered), this inevitably led
to the destruction of the very nature that humanity depended upon for its
(new) advanced technological exploitation of nature. Thus the original,
first comprehensive attempts at systematic cultural management of nature led
to the first (original) kind of alienation from nature (this probably
coincided with the appearance of agricultural "gods" and religions to
supplant the inherited animistic beliefs of the ancestral hunter-gatherers).
The next level of alienation was reached when nature "avenges" itself upon
Man and "punishes" Man (by harvest failure, draught, plague, starvation
etc.) for his vile (cultural) defacement of nature (the rise of "evil" gods
and religions propagating primitivism, original sin, societal
deconstruction, slavery, war, and (possibly) cannibalism). The third level
of alienation is achieved or about to be achieved in our times with the
(soon to be) complete exclusion of nature from agriculture and husbandry.
What this will lead to is anybody's guess, but it's credible that if
humanity goes on to provoke a global environmental disaster, the old "evil"
religions will re-surface in some incarnation. If that doesn't happen, new
kinds of "good" all-powerful "gods" and monotheistic religions might emerge
to fit (better) with Man's new elevated perceptions of his own powers. That
this will lead to new more intense feelings of psychological alienation is
highly likely, UNLESS something is done to counteract this ancient (and
contemporary) and mad merry-go-round!

Indirectly, by stating, "Religion predates technology", you put your finger
on a very difficult point. Nobody in the World has ever managed to come up
with a good hypothesis to account for the origin of religion and the very
strange psychological phenomenon of "faith". Nobody! All that is known is
that religious inspired convictions have always been a part of human life as
far back as the historical record goes. That is all. With such a meagre
foundation for knowledge and the generation of valid hypothesis there are
bound to be huge unknowns in any theory. While contemporary science may
succeed in understanding and describing "faith" as a psychological
phenomenon, it has undoubted historic and cultural roots which will never
become known or understood. This amounts to a great question mark about the
validity of some important parts of modern psychological theory and it has
the same effect with regard to the "Unlearn God"-doctrine, which is mainly
forced to rely on the understandings of psychologists, social scientists,
and ethnologists for its central rationale.

Darn, somehow I hoped naively that this point wouldn't come up. But it's
there, all right!  :-) Like everybody else who's ever wondered about this
mystery I, too, have an opinion - not my invention, but very ancient - about
how "faith" and religion originated as social phenomena. One of the most
ancient clues comes from China.

http://www.holhealth.free-online.co.uk/Yin-Yang.htm
Yin/Yang Theory
The theories of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements were discovered and developed
by the ancient Chinese sages through empirical means by their prolonged
observations of nature's cycles and changes.<...>

http://www.cathayherbal.com/library/general_Information/YIN_YAN_Theory/yin_yan_theory.htm
Yin-Yang
The ancient Chinese philosophers used the Yin-Yang theory to explain the
changes that occur in nature. According to this theory, all things and
phenomena in the universe contain two opposite aspects - Yin and Yang -
which are, at the same time, both interdependent and in conflict. They may
be seen as complementary and yet also in opposition to each other. The
Yin-Yang theory thus represents the law of unity of opposites. It implies
the underlying unity as well as the manifest polarity of things, events and
processes.
    Yin and Yang represent the two opposite principles or tendencies of one
object or phenomenon in relation to another. It may also represent different
and opposite aspects within the same object or phenomenon.  <...>

The ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is, as far as I'm aware, the
only surviving ancient religious tradition which openly recognizes the fact
that it originates with empirical "...observations of nature's cycles and
changes". I suspect that all original religious ideas and "gods" had such a
genesis, but that they lost their original contextual meaning and
relationship to observed reality and became "promoted" to abstract (natural)
"gods" in charge of (and "outside" of) nature by mind-bending religious
practises (as discussed in previous messages) which tend to make  "gods" out
of "natural and social objects of veneration or awe" when enough time (to
have ancestral memories altered or suppressed) has gone by (a generation or
more).

> I grant the liabilities of religion in political/economic/social
> terms. However to extend that to a return to primitive lifestyle is
> probably too much of a stretch for me. I don't believe one can turn
> back the clock, or that one would really want to. The good old days
> always seem great until you relive them for a day.

Neither do I believe it's possible to "turn back the clock". Forward looking
solutions are the only viable ones, IMHO. What is done is done.

<snip some environmental concerns>

> Those problems need to be solved, and aren't. It is a crime that the
> U.S. has no sufficient energy policy. To me this is a matter of
> politics, of people receiving objective information about these
> things. There is a counter-argument that there are plenty of oil
> reserves. The counter to that is that the oil crisis has caused huge
> problems regardless of reserves, and that's a historical fact.

Yes, so go the daily debates and arguments in the media. But they never
touch on the most important REAL and very dangerous consequences that an
unbalanced exploitation of nature brings (one way or the other). The whole
matter is often reduced to being a question of simple economics in monetary
terms, as if that had anything to do with anything (except for private
corporations). This despite that fact that human history is able to provide
many scary and educational examples of what happens to societies and
civilizations which destroy their own natural basis for survival through
short-sighted policies of greed, entrenched interests, and the belief in
all-powerful "gods".

> That sounds reasonable. There is the problem of individual choice as
> well. I would require that all along, and not suspend it during any
> implementation period which can turn out to be forever.

See above for examples of "managed primitivity"

<snip question about what form of government is preferable>

Very hard question to answer. A new attempt at an Enlightenment of sorts
would have to do its best to adapt itself to local circumstances. Since the
aim of the "Unlearn God"-doctrine is basically anti-authoritarian that in
itself presents a problem when trying to influence societies which have
strong, centralized, authoritarian social constructs. In order to get
started it would probably be necessecary to thread softly.

My own personal favourite government is one that is primarily responsible
for its actions under the law, meaning a government which feels duty bound
to adhere to the best principles of constitutionality and which is always
accountable, open, and honest about its intentions, actions, policies. Such
a government would have to have strong democratic credentials, probably a
lot better than the current (low) average standard in the Occident (if
Occidental standards are as good as some Western governments want to convey
why do these very governments resort to mind-bending agitprop and outright
mendaciousness to rule their citizens and to exploitative economic relations
with and militarist interventions in defenceless Third World nations?).

> This is the problem to solve. Or do you seek an alternative to voting?
> That would suggest inherent elitism to me.  Previously you described
> an implementation of psychoanalysis and education, and seemed fully
> aware of the dangers of BNW and 1984. So that psychoanalysis would be
> part of the education by free choice, no? If not elitism, then by what
> method would the majority express it's choice? I am in favor of voter
> tests, given an objective method of devising the tests. Another reason
> for my interest in AI. With objective testing, this could be an
> "educated majority."

No, I wouldn't say that elitism is inherent in the "Unlearn God"-thesis.
Elitism is probably bound to occur as a social phenomenon in any society
with a well organized division of labour and with strong authoritarian
social constructs in place. The difficulties (there are many advantages,
too) that social elites ordinarily presents to the well-being of society is
that secular and religious powers accrue to the elite with time and that
society the runs the risk of the elite then becoming a sort of "isolated"
enclave of inherited privilege at the apex of society. If this happens,
society is in deep trouble. Only if an elite is obligated to work in the
general interest of society and is permanently barred from assuming
positions of inherited privilege (meaning, none should be allowed to exist)
is it's existence a potential boon to society.

<snip>

> Manipulation of the voting public tends to give democracy a bad name,
> true. The alternative is elitism of some sort, true. But is religion a
> form of elitism? To the elite within the religion, at least.

Yes, organized religions always become authoritarian bastions of (inherited)
elitism. The general way to deal with that is to counteract ALL kinds of
social authoritarianism and seek to empower individuals, families, local
communities. Participatory democracy is a good way to accomplish that, IMHO.

<snip question about US state-carrying religions>>

> The activist religion, i.e. religious right, is actually a small
> minority. However you are right, the american brand of Christian
> values and morality permeate the whole culture, except in certain
> locations, mostly in the West. Of course this is well-known
> everywhere, even here.

No, I have to admit to a certain degree of ignorance - and I think this is
an aspect of US society which is confusing to most Europeans, since here in
Europe traditional organized religions are perceived to be part of the
"establishment". I believed that the Mid-West and the South-West were the
greatest bastions of fundamentalist Christian religions in the US. Somehow I
imagined that the whole of the US is quite religious (not exactly the same
as when you say, "Christian values...permeate society", right?), and that
modern secularism is only in the ascendance among big city populations. I am
aware that the US hasn't got a state-run religion as many European nations
have, yet it seems to many Europeans that when US politicians talk to the
media they often express themselves in very religious terms - much more
religious than most European politicians would ever dare, even in Catholic
nations.

<snip a bit about how to go about indoctrinating people>

> Just about right, IMO. Don't forget shouting, crying, etc., anything
> to raise emotions, prevent analytical thinking, and switch people into
> programming mode. Bypass the conscious and get directly to the
> subconcious.

That's the idea, all right. People feel relived and even exhilarated by this
experience. Surely, this is a strangeness beyond logical comprehension.

>> It significies NOTHING, except
>> the emotional release of anxiously pent up energies.
>
> I've previously listed a large number of motivations, and I think you
> agreed.

Motivations are what drives people to participate, what gives them direction
and purpose, I agree. But why don't they feel a diminishing of this purpose
when the essential cognitive emptiness of the whole ritualistic happening is
revealed (as it must be on first experiencing or at least understanding it)?
What is the value of emotional release if it signifies NOTHING and has no
relation to perceived subjective needs? This, in my experience, is one of
those questions which it seems impossible to have answered (by believers) in
an understandable fashion. The answer that I have suggested in these
messages is that the REAL purpose is to generally de-sensitize and numb
people's minds, making them less awake, less alert, less independent,
thereby leaving the individual hungry for ever new doses of emotion
relieving and exhilarating habit forming medication (placebo, really).
Religious rituals are "downers"!

<snip - practibility of getting rid of religion>

> I didn't mean to imply an equivalence with religion in this respect,
> only a much reduced insulation. I think there are some things that
> people cannot be expected to face head-on, and that this is such a
> basic survival mechanism that it can't be changed in the general
> population.

Well, I'd be happy to see religious influences in people's lives reduced,
too, as much as possible. A complete eradication of religion would probably
be impossible, but a very drastic reduction would not.

Yes, there are probably some aspects of contemporary human life that people
"cannot be expected to face head-on". But I'd always protest that the
propensity of human beings to flock to religions amounts to a survival
mechanism. The primary idea of the "Unlearn God"-thesis is that religions
and their belief systems weaken Man and reduce his socio-psychological
fitness in dealing with real life crises and problems, thereby increasing
his dependency on authoritarian social constructs. Religions form
"artificial" and fake escapist islands for refugees from terrible reality.
This is profoundly ANTI-survival and DEEPLY irrational. The only real way to
make problems less scary is to meet their challenge head on or move away and
then employ the human resources necessary to deal with the resultant
challenges in a reasoned and rational manner. If this would happen in EVERY
crisis, Man might soon forget his irrational impulse to seek illusory
"refuge" in religion.

<snip>

> This sounds like a utopian society.

Yes, in many ways it is utopian in its aspirations. But the "Unlearn
God"-thesis doesn't amount to a proper utopian vision, because that would
require a much more evolved thesis. Instead this is basically a suggestion
of how to begin counteracting the (perhaps) greatest social obstacle to
self-directed societal reform towards a less authoritarian and oppressive
society. By suggesting a simple direct "cure", the doctrine can be fitted to
or included in any existing progressive political program and it can be
utilized (hopefully) in any society, whether rich or poor, whether
democratic or dictatorial. It's an attempt to (so reactionaries would view
it) formulate a truly subversive (of all authoritarianisms), yet socially
acceptable program for beneficial reform that would potentially change the
entire basis of political reality and end the current socio-psychological
mismanagement of societies. Yes, I know, this is VERY ambitious, but I
believe that the Enlightenment of the 18th century proved that this sort of
"subversiveness" could work like a charm. But it takes time!

> What is your thesis? 1) unlearn
> god, 2) managed primitivism (as in reverse technological advance), and
> a utopian society seems #3. It is quite expansive. Or one might ask,
> what is your true agenda? The probability of success is usually
> inverse to the expansiveness of the enterprise. But there is nothing
> wrong with defining a problem or vision - at least it can help to move
> in the desired direction. These types of visions are often the theme
> of speculative or futurist fiction. Godless and naturist are frequent.
> I call that good philosophy (tied to examples from common experience,
> though in fiction they are contrived examples). I read a lot of it
> when young for this reason, preferring it greatly over philosophy
> books, and especially "history of ideas" books.

So true, "The probability of success is usually inverse to the expansiveness
of the enterprise". That's why simplicity of action is essential as is the
avoidance of overreach. That's why "Unlearn God" would probably be perceived
as more of a parole than a political statement or plan of action by the
public. Only by examining the underlying agenda would the true scope of what
this entails become clear: To become the straw that breaks the camel's
back - causing the fall of the new tyranny of insidious mind-bending social
constructs their oppressive practices.

> I'm with you on the thesis to unlearn god in most contexts that you
> describe. I'm with you on the utopian society. I'm not with you on the
> reverse or slowing down of technological advance. But I could suggest
> a great argument in support of your view - Fermi's Paradox, or the
> apparent lack of alien civilizations. That could mean that
> technological advance is self-limiting for a number of reasons. If so,
> it appears to be not long after the ability to send radio signals,
> which would mean not very long for us. I think many would be receptive
> to that particular idea if cast in this light. Well, maybe it's a
> chapter anyway.

Yes, I know about Fermi's paradox. No, I'm not arguing for reversing
technological development. But I'm clearly in favour of technological and
all other kinds of development being balanced with regard to the potential
good or harm, they can cause. I'd have a society where technological
progress is understood primarily in relation to its larger social and
natural consequences and not only as an expression of narrow private or
public (authoritarian self-) interest. The acceptance of new technologies
and technological practices ought to lie with society as a whole (through
the political process).

<snip therapeutic options>

> The usually alternative is brainwashing. Like we have now. Perhaps a
> well-developed theory that passed objective tests or seems highly
> likely, thereby gaining acceptance into mainstream education or
> popular media.

Yes, who would like to become the first test subjects? What, nobody? Yes,
there will be all kinds of obstacles. But once initial trials have been
successful, I'm sure it could become a hit. It all depends on finding ways
to show seriousness of purpose and integrity to the public, IMHO.

<snip>

> "alfabethezise" doesn't come up in google. Not criticizing spelling,
> but the closest I can come is alphabetize, which makes no sense to me.

Sorry about the spelling mistake. I think it was a wee bit late when I wrote
that.

<snip>

> The Brave New World masters and Big Brother made that same argument.
> Will a majority of people be persuaded that your way is better? How
> will we count that majority?

That's right, I remember. But that is the exact reason why something like
the historic Enlightenment or the infant "Unlearn God"-doctrine couldn't
ever function on their own as political programs. They will never be able to
become large popular movements. They have to work (mainly) out of the
spotlight of obsessive daily political goings on. They are projects to
change public perceptions and social practices, and they can only succeed
over time through the work of dedicated volunteers. The historic
Enlightenment NEVER had any sort of popular political following, yet its
influence on Occidental culture has been substantial and enduring!

<snip>

> War is one of the terrible realities. But, living in the U.S., I can't
> see the connection to seeking god because of it. One reason why your
> theory is hard to test in terms of history is because, as you've said,
> until recently religion was the only way of thinking. Hard to find
> examples where there was no religion, then there was.

Yes, you have found an argumentative weakness. I've tried to answer that as
best I can (above) when talking about the development and origin of
religions and "gods". There is no finite or conclusive answer to your
argument, I think, but it can be answered in part.

<snip Casino Economy>

> Yes, I'd like to find an alternative/addition to raising capital.
> Partly by making business smaller and more competitive. Whenever I see
> problems in the fair and efficient allocation of goods and services, I
> also see an impairment of competition in some way. The elitism you
> speak of is one way.
>
> Regarding Enron, etc., this is mostly a legal issue. The judicial
> branch of the U.S. government is defunct, and has been for a long
> time, IMO. (Assuming it ever wasn't.) From what I hear, Europe is far
> ahead on this.

Oh, there are economic scandals and corruption cases here, too. But at least
some European governments try to counter the growing corporate economic
crime wave. They're not always successful. But those governments appear
RATIONAL compared to sections of the public who go into open feeding
frenzies of greed when bourses go up, up , up - and abject despair when they
go down, down, down!

<snip secular psychological indoctrination compared to religious
conditioning>

> Hey I like that "psychological conditioning" - thanks for another term
> to avoid redundancy. By now we might have a collision between my
> "psychological conditioning" (bad) and your "psychotherapy" (good). Is
> this a real collision?

Yes, it might be a collision if psychotherapy turns out to be just another
attempt at authoritarian indoctrination. After all, psychotherapy is
supposed to be beneficial and help the person suffering for some mental
problem regain his health.

<snip>

> I disagree with your "faith" distinction. To me, faith is a
> fundamental opposite to empiricism or science or "belief by objective
> tests," and that distinction fully meets your definition of "faith in
> god" as well as the faith required to believe any non-empirical or
> unfalsifiable dogma besides religion proper. Maybe we just want to
> define "faith" our own way, so that there is no disagreement in
> concepts.
>
> Religion is surely distinct from other belief systems in many ways
> including those you mention. The applicable distinctions I see are
> that religion is older and wiser (i.e. more effective and thus worse)
> in the numerous ways we've listed, but better in the sense that it is
> more honest (or at least identifiable) about its activities and the
> others which are more insidious and deceptive. With religion so
> identifiable it is possible to set up a system of free choice
> regarding it (don't read anything about the U.S. into that). With the
> others, no free choice in any systematic way.
>
> Regarding the other differences, I see them as superfluous in light of
> the problems you address. What good is it to you to eradicate religion
> if it is only replaced by some other belief system?

That is exactly right, it would be superfluous and perhaps even criminal to
just replace religious systems of mental indoctrination with other systems
of conditioning. It would accomplish nothing or possibly even the contrary
result in making people even more dependant on and subservient to
psychological mind-bending social constructs than they are today. That is
the central reason why I believe that "Unlearn God" shouldn't become a
political ideology or been seen as a way to achieve utopia. No, I'd much
prefer that it became a motivator for all sorts of anti-authoritarian
projects, especially those that would lead to an empowerment of individuals,
families, local societies to the detriment of powerful reactionary and
mind-control practicing social constructs. The prime, most important step in
achieving such a goal would be to counteract the millennial old practices of
psychological conditioning and regimentation perpetrated by organized
religions.

The way you describe "faith" above, as an "fundamental opposite to
empiricism or science etc.", is quite correct, as far as I can tell. One
might even go so far as to say (a bit provocatively) that "faith" is the
irrational belief in the objective existence of "something or other" which
is neither materially evident based on any sort of empirical investigation
of objective reality nor on any rational interpretation of observed reality.
"Blind faith" of this kind is essentially "religious faith", the belief that
the psychological inventions of the mind have some objective existence,
apart from the physical processes of the human mind. Although this is what
we have so (far more or less) agreed upon, we still seem to differ on one
specific matter. This "faith" bit and the complex mental processes that go
into forming it and maintaining in the mind of individuals still seems to me
to be qualitatively different from other delusions or figments of a run-away
imagination that the mind may suffer from. We ought at least to be able to
agree that "faith" requires a conscious effort by the individual to be
maintained, a sort of voluntary, self-disciplined "dedication" of the
conscious mind, which political agitprop or toothpaste commercials don't
require. Religious indoctrination is therefore a more severe form of
indoctrination than just ordinary, secular conditioning usually is (there
are exceptions, naturally), and which has much more severe detrimental
consequences. If  this self-disciplined dedication that many believers
voluntarily offer to their own "faith" were to be used for increasing the
self-reliance and mental health of the individual, a lot could be achieved,
IMHO. If religions did that, I believe I would support them... (aw, not
really :-) )


> The effects of all
> can be the same. The Third Reich, The Inquisition, Stalinism,
> capitalism, communism, Koreshism, Smithism, Joe Blowism, Ismism <g>
> mix and match. When you eradicate religion proper, the people involved
> would just switch to something less identifiable. It's not the dogma -
> just about any dogma can be devised to accomplish a given purpose.
> There are as many dogmas as there are clever opportunists,
> power-trippers, mentally disordered, and delusional people in the
> world. And more from good people who use these as a vehicle, as we've
> agreed. But what tells the difference?

The qualitative difference has to do with the degree with which the objects
(of mind-bending psychological conditioning) can be relied on to  reinforce
their received internalized programming, themselves. In religious believers
it's very common for religious conditioning to reinforce itself through the
mental processes of the individual (discussed in previous messages). This is
not (ordinarily) a strong feature of secular mental programming. Who would
ever feel as religiously passionate about a brand name (however much
advertised) as he would about "god"? - See above.

<snip "Endless Indoctrination?" continued>

> Oh yes, that's another thing entirely. Does not a normal person get
> bored simply by repetiton? Isn't that the definition of boredom? Well
> of course religion has the answer for that - ritual. Reinforcing
> ritual. Fun ritual, like singing. But the sermons - god I hate them so
> just due to the boredom of it. Same exact thing with political
> speeches, no better no worse. God how I hate sermons of every kind.
> But I can't escape them. Friends keep getting married! Politicians
> keep jumping into news broadcasts! But that doesn't apply to all
> religious people. Some, maybe most, can make interesting arguments.
> Some don't like the heirarchy of religion and prefer informal
> discussion groups.

"God how I hate sermons of every kind!" Oh, I look forward to the day when
this has become the refrain of a religious hymn. That'll indeed herald in a
new enlightened era for humanity.

<snip dig at conservatives>

> I'm unqualfied to comment. Quite argumentative, as you know.

It was argumentative, I know it, sorry.

<snip a bit about the desirability of social revolution and reform>

> One should always try to work within the system to improve the system
> for everyone in real-time. Working outside the system to change the
> system for some future population requires first tearing down the
> existing system. The end always justifies the means, and extremism
> requires extreme means. It should always be a last resort and very
> empirically justified by the facts. We now have extremism in the U.S.,
> and I don't see the justification. Obvious solutions have not even
> been tried. Not applicable to your world view perhaps.

Oh, that is indeed applicable to this debate, as I see it. We've discussed
how a people or a society becomes politically radicalized (in former
messages). It's always a question of society somehow moving away from its
centre of balance because communal, social, centrist political forces have
become weakened - and the radical political wings strengthened. A society
able to resist radicalism propagated through the mass media would much more
easily avoid this old trap. They would be able to resist and would not let
themselves be taken in by mendacious agitprop.

<snip statement about religions having detrimental effect on politics>

> That's the most powerful way of stating it I've heard yet. This should
> be the introduction to your thesis. It also demonstrates why religion
> is (probably) by far the greatest obstacle compared to the other
> belief systems I mentioned. I am forced to agree with you here.

Great! This seems like some sort of (modest?) breakthrough. We have
discussed this very difficult question from a lot of angles, by now.

<snip - explanation of why people always suffer from existential fears>

> But my religious friends are apparently some of the happiest, least
> neurotic people I know. How do you demonstrate this point-of-view in
> context?

The (uncharitable) observer would say, these religiously un-neurotic people
are on drugs for that's the only explanation for their apparent happiness
and contentment. The religious person would accuse such an observer of being
envious ("sour grapes"), and he would claim that "god" takes care of him and
makes him happy. What is the truth? Well, the religious person doesn't hide
his psychological reliance on his "faith" to weather the challenges of life.
This means (since "god" doesn't exist anywhere except in his mind) that he
has mentally conditioned himself with the aid of a psychological "trick"
(aka "faith in god") to feel happy and to (consciously or unconsciously)
suppress all the psychological troubles, doubts, problems that always
afflict  humanity, for whatever reasons. That argument, to me, seems quite
sufficient to propose the idea that religious psychological conditioning is
very damaging to both the individual and to society. If an individual human
being lives in a way which gives him mental problems, those problems
shouldn't be suppressed by calming religious socio-psychological
indoctrination, but they should be acted upon consciously by the individual
in order to remedy the problem and reclaim mental health! Anything else is
definitely anti-survival and irrational.

Willy-Nellie, there's no escaping reality. Religious believers may feel they
KNOW they have found a "sanctuary", but they have just found a way to kid
themselves about their own feelings and about what it means to be a human
being in this World.

<snip - everything is emotionally connected>

> Ok. The "non-doubting" religious people are quite neurotic in this
> respect. Not that they doubt their belief, but they fear the
> consequences of their belief. That's not the same "doubt" I was
> talking about. And lots of non-religious people are neurotic for other
> reasons. Probably more of them.

Well, that's the point. Human beings are both very alike and very different.
Thus it is to be expected that some people will suffer mental trauma from
experiences which leave other people quite unimpressed. Why try to regiment
individual emotions with religious beliefs? Isn't that somehow very
demeaning to the individual? And since human fears (and other emotions) can
never be conquered or completely suppressed, why even try? If somebody is
afraid of something, of some life situation, a challenge or whatnot, whether
that fear is rational or not, why not deal with that directly instead of
taking the long way round by inventing some "god"? All that is so
counter-indicative of rationality in dealing with the basic human condition.
Probably, if people are to be broken of their submissive affiliation to
religions, this break will also make many mentally unstable or ill. But
that's just one step towards liberation, which will not come without at
least some pain and anguish, for sure! Does the old, retired galley slave
REALLY long for his oar?

<snip - explanation of interaction between the conscious and the
subconscious>

> This analysis seems not to address the point very well. I say that
> some religious people don't doubt their beliefs. You say they are
> neurotic our of fear of that belief (which they don't doubt), which
> fear translates to doubt. They are neurotic for psychological factors.
> But a lot of people are neurotic, including due to the disconnect with
> nature you observe. The argument seems loose, and not to address
> objections. But that could be entirely due to my ignorance of
> psychology proper and thus worthy of being ignored. For general
> consumption, I have the impressions that this fear-doubt-aggression
> etc. nexus needs more clear, concise, compelling support with examples
> in close context.

It's hard to be more clear than attempted so far without some concrete
examples to use for illustration. To do that it would be necessary to obtain
samples of the emotional (and other) rationales people have for joining
religions in the first place. I have no knowledge of such sampling and don't
believe any have ever been carried out (anywhere in the World. It would
surely be a rewarding Gallup for sociologists, psychologists, or
ethnologists to carry out). Yet I believe that the greater part of those
people who choose freely as legal adults to join organized religions do so
from a quite narrow set of choices. They might be reasons like a longing for
ordered life, the need to belong, the need to become accepted, the need for
human company etc. Pretty basic stuff, really.

All these reasons can be distilled into one main motive, a psychological
need (drive, motivation) to counter the (chaotic and threatening) realities
of human life in some existential way. "God" appears pretty existential,
"he" being the creator of the Universe et al, and that's why an organized
religion will appear to be just what the doctor ordered, so go the
perceptions of most of those who are prone to religious sentiment. By that I
really mean that they long for their "niche" in life, their "place", and
that an authoritarian and ritualistic hierarchy like most organized
religions offer is the perfect setting for those who would always prefer a
feeling of personal safety and belonging to any admittance of conscious and
painful emotions of doubt, anxiety, and fear.

This trade-off between giving up a certain amount of spiritual freedom in
order to feel safe and appreciated is a pact with the "Devil", IMHO. It's
what the "Serpent" offered "Eve" in "Paradise" when it told her Man would
become "god"-like if she and "Adam" ate of the "Tree of Life". That's how
old the first anti-religious sentiments go, according to the Bible (of
course, this legend is always interpreted as something different) and it is
as true today as it was then, in those pre-historical and mythical times. In
order to put the same idea into modern psychological terms, not much needs
to be changed. The Serpent symbolizes Man's rational and logical
capabilities, his conscious mind, Eve is Man's emotional side, and poor Adam
is the subconscious, who doesn't understand anything but suffers all the
consequences of this fateful "meal" ("god" as usual play the part of the
super-ego). The conscious mind is lured by the advantages that religion
seems to offer, but the result is "Eternal Damnation" (= always afraid,
sinful, insecure, exiled) and banishment from "Paradise" (= from happiness,
contentment, safety, and sense of belonging). By "getting religion" people
in reality get the exact opposite of what they "bargain" for, so it goes -
and that is not a secret, it's been known for millennia! But right after the
ritual offering has been performed by the Magi before the Eternal Flame
(I.a.), the whole mess will seem pretty tolerable and even enjoyable (Man
has a masochistic side to his psyche, too). Then there's only the problem of
getting through tomorrow and tomorrow, until the next heart-warming ritual
is due.

I don't know if this parable using religious metaphor helps in getting my
point across. But at least it was fun thinking up. Please, let me know how
this idea looks form your perspective, now.

<snip agreements about the subconscious>

> You have a point. But I think it would apply to a million things
> more-or-less besides a belief in god, or any belief.

<snip>

> I agree with that effect, but not the overriding importance you claim.

See the paragraphs about Adam and Eve above.

***********************************

I am sorry about the time it has taken to finish this reply. I really hope
you haven't given up on me. But I have to admit that this was a bit more
time consuming than previous messages. Somehow this has become nearly 8.000
words long, though I have tried to snip as much as possible.

Some of the items discussed - based on your questions, comments, reactions -
were hard work but enjoyable to do. Some of your comments led to questions I
haven't ever considered in this context. For the umpteenth time in my life
I'm reminded how connected all of human existence and experience is and how
much the present time owes to past explorers, philosophers, thinkers,
historians, scientists. Without them, so I suspect, none of us would have
been able to formulate even one tenth of the ideas which have played a role
in this exchange.

I look forward to reading your next message.

Nes