RoR: Forum

Religion still prospers because it addresses the four basic human needs. To learn what are those needs and how we can do a better job ourselves, see this article I published on the subject some years ago. Until we fully articulate our meaning of life and engage vigorously in marketing our meaning in a way the average member of the masses can understand, freethinking philosophies like Objectivism will never make headway.

Before someone jumps my case about my "failure" to make the proposed club network in the article a reality, allow me to point to that shortcoming as evidence of how far we still have to go. What I learned is that unless you have profoundly committed "missionaries" at each "node" of the "network," that network will fail. By "profoundly committed" I mean committed financially as well as emotionally. My mistake was in thinking, "If you build it, they will come." Something more is clearly needed.

Moreover, Objectivists are quite happy to satisfy themselves with their own meaning (such as their life's work) without "needing" to "witness" to others about it. So there is a Catch-22 here. Those who "need" others to validate themselves will "spread the word" more intensely than those who do not. An evolutionist might argue that tribalism had an advantage over individualism that passed those "needy" genes to many more people than not over time. I am not an anthropologist and cannot say much about the matter at the moment.

For more on cult mind control, see the BITE model at the site of a cult exit counselor.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/13, 9:56am)

Post 1

Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 1:55pm

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

Denis Diderot

Luke made an excellent point. That Religion, despite it's massive flaws is an attempt to answer the key questions of who am I, what do I need to know, what is right and what is wrong, and what is good and what is evil?

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."

For us Objectivists, we have a vision, and we have our answers to our questions. But nearly all of us started as 'intellectuals,' that is, as people very interested in ideas. Most people are far more oriented towards the concrete world, the practical world, and it isn't that they don't need the principles, but that once they get them, they are content - studying the principles and their applications isn't what they do for fun.

Then there is ritual. I think it is under appreciated as is the social aspect of religion. These knit together and make more solid what otherwise would be thin soup for the average person.

Post 2

Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 2:58pm

Yes, humans are still social animals and, arguably, the social precedes the rational in the evolution of humans from earlier species. So no one should wonder why humans still remain predisposed so often to elevate the social above the rational. We are also great imitators from infancy forward, often to a fault, and this explains the persistence of rituals.

To supplement the points Steve made, religion and its trappings serve the deep need for a personal identity. When I describe myself, how do I identify myself? People often describe themselves with labels and religion certainly fits the bill.

"Why did you do that?!"
"Because I am a (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) and that is what we do."

Secular labels like "Objectivist" can validly serve this need and also suffer some of the same traps and faults of religious ones. When an Objectivist praises smoking or condemns homosexuality because Ayn Rand did so, the label becomes a hindrance rather than a help. Be careful.

Post 3

Friday, March 16, 2012 - 5:57am

I agree with all the comments. I would add as well that most people, myself included, have a hard time with the idea that something came from nothing. Of course, the religionist still has to account for what created their god and the infinite regression problem, but that never seems to bother them.

In general, it becomes apparent to a human that we are a part of something much bigger than ourselves. Things existed before life as we know it. Religion offers an easy out to these challenging questions.

Also, many religious practitioners silently doubt the mystical claims of their faith, but they fear moral relativism and they see religion as safeguard against that. Arbitrary standards are better than no standards is their point of view. I think this is a huge reason why religion persists.

Post 4

Friday, March 16, 2012 - 10:52am

Yes, Pete, I endured a protracted e-mail dialogue with a Christian Libertarian back in the late 1990s that centered on the "origins" question. I raised the same objections to "infinite regress" that you did. As you can guess, the argument went nowhere, wasted our time, and aggravated both of us. This site had a "Citizen Rat" (Bill Tingley) of similar persuasion.

If I had to name a single benefit of exposure as an adolescent to a religiously diverse student population at my boarding high school, it would be the firm conclusion: "Religions certainly cannot all be true but they certainly can all be false!" More importantly, though, all religions likely have a mix of truths and falsehoods. By what standard do we measure their verity? Objectivists would say "reality" but mystics will claim a "higher" reality knowable only through non-rational means. Blah, blah, blah. I have better things to do than to argue with psychotics.

Post 5

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 12:10pm

Pete:

Of course, the religionist still has to account for what created their god and the infinite regression problem, but that never seems to bother them.

I am no religionist, but the infinite regression problem is not uniquely theirs:

If a first creator, then who created the first creator is pretty much in a dead heat with, if a first cold process, then what cold process created the first cold process.

And that never seems to bother anyone.

Or, maybe it has always bothered everyone, is a better way to put that.

Theories like the Big Bang as a consequence of M-Brane theory(a 'collision' in a meta-verse creating our universe)just kick the can down the road, IMO. Just like ancient mankind and his 'its just turtles all the way down.'

As ancient man used to say, if a giant turtle is holding up the earth, then maybe he's standing on another turtle, and so, its just turtles 'all the way down.' Never mind, down to where.

As mankind advances, we dress that explanation up, make it more palatable. But even ancient mankind recognized the infinite regression problem.

regards,
Fred

Post 6

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 12:52pm

Fred,
I agree to a point. I can't speak for all the faithless, but for me, I'm willing to just say "I don't know" for anything that goes beyond human comprehension. Maybe humans will one day understand things better, maybe not. But that is much more intellectually honest than just saying, with certainty, "God did it."

Post 7

Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 2:03pm

A philosophical, scientific or 'objective' understanding of existence is not something that most individuals can easily attain: there needs to be default position - enter religion/mysticism.

I truly admire folks (such as objectivists) who do not fall prey to such nonsense : but you are, I dare say, a dying breed.

There a really goofy film called 'idiocracy'; it is meant to be a total spoof, an apocalyptic, cynical look at the future of America - but to me, it is begging to actually look more and more like a harbinger of things to come.

Alas, I also make a point of watching youtube videos of Y.Brook, and listening to L. Peikof podcasts, to help cope with this growing sense of gloom and doom about the human race.

Frequently lurking on this forum helps a lot too.....

Post 8

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 9:40am

Pete:

I'm a fellow "don't know"-er; a devout non-aligned agnostic(, and with tongue in cheek,)theist: the evidence of a creator I can readily see is the universe, as it is, and that is creator enough, by my definition.

No end of classical theists as well as classical atheists have from time to time informatively told me that my belief in the universe, as it is, as my creator is alternately 'not God enough' and 'too God-like' at the same time.

I figure, that is a near miracle, and so, God enough for me.

But moot; I'm here. I might as well live here. Who am I to argue with my creator? If I don't believe in my creator, will that void my existence? It can't...I'm here.

But, yes-- shrugging and handing over the whole issue to a local club of some kind can free up the wheels for other worldly uses as well as provide some often much needed inner peace. Their fees for wrapping a bow on this can't be opened package are often exorbitant, however.

The politics around this singularity/issue have driven mankind forever. Too often, insane. But not always.

Still, the transparent appeal(the promise of near infinite return in the next life offered at no cost in this life to the offerors, who yet offer a full money back guarantee)makes these politics irresistable to some in the tribe. It's another one of those 'crime is easier than calculus' realities of life in the tribe.

Should at least come with the normal precautions: "MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS AND/OR SUDDEN LOSS OF CONTROL OVER YOUR BLADDER AND/OR LIFE. DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY AFTER TAKING. SIDE EFFECTS CAN INCLUDE EYES ROLLED INTO THE BACK OF HEAD, SPEAKING IN TONGUES, AND VOMITING."

regards,
Fred

Post 9

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 2:28pm

Fred your posts always make me smile.

Post 10

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 3:12pm

I'd like to take credit, but it's the beer next to my keyboard.

regards,
Fred

Post 11

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 3:26pm

Always a party when Fred's around.

;)

Post 12

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 5:46pm

Lol it is a blizzard right now and I was driving about 10 mph and slid into a curb and got a flat tire. So as I wait for the tow truck(im at too steep of an angle to safely jack the truck up) I lament that I cannot drink one with Fred!
Cheers anyway have one for me!

Post 13

Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 7:26am

Jules:

This is when you need a Guinness: aka "Liquid Tires."

I just had one last night, as a matter of fact.

Why 'liquid tires:' because Guinness is dark and thick and provides a soft, cushioned ride over life's bumpy spots.

Best enjoyed in Halifax on a foggy night in one of those little pubs on the side of the hill, listening to a fiddler and squeeze box player.

regards,
Fred

P.S.: ... after a meal at The Five Fishermen
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/24, 7:27am)

Post 14

Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 6:16am