What a Racket
Some more on this stipulation problem. On why ‘this pleases Allah’ and ‘this angers Allah’ are not the best criteria for what should go in a constitution – any more than ‘what would Jesus do’ is the best question for a 21st century polititian to ask himself.
Because it all depends on one’s conception of Allah or Jesus, for one thing. And guess what – people (my, what a suprise) have a tendency to conceptualize Jesus and Allah according to their own existing wants and opinions and deficits. If they don’t score all that well on the altruism or fairness or humility scale, well, their god is going to have a tendency to arrange things so that they get what they want and people who are in their power get screwed – and then they will call that outcome ‘what pleases Allah’ thus making it not just the way powerful men have arranged things to their own advantage, but Holy and Sacred and Right – so that not only will it never change, but everyone will respect it and worship it and revile anyone who criticizes or questions it. Quite a nice little racket.
And there’s no appeal, which is another reason those are not the best criteria, and why religion should be kept firmly out of government and politics. Because there is no one to file a grievance with and no way to second-guess the results. That’s how it works when you have a Book written 1500 years ago and a god who is never around to ask for updates. Very damn convenient, isn’t it!
‘Sorry – we’d love to let you have basic rights, like being allowed to walk around in the world without asking anyone’s permission, but it would anger Allah, so it’s out.’ ‘Oh yeah? You sure that’s not just your idea? Let’s ask Allah.’ ‘No can do. He’s not here. We can ask the imam.’ ‘I don’t care what the imam says, the imam will just say what you said, you probably asked the imam before you said it – you guys are all in this together. I want to take it to the top!’ ‘Not possible. Unless you want to get yourself one of those rucksacks, of course…’
Very very convenient. He makes the rules, according to what pleases him or pisses him off – but he’s never around to corroborate. There really is a serious design flaw with this whole arrangement. It’s just not the way to do things. You don’t set up a rule-system with a yes-no, on-off mechanism involving one guy when the one guy in question is someone who is never available for consultation – do you! Not in the real world you don’t. Dickens novels sometimes work that way, but other than that, it doesn’t fly.
That’s the problem with the whole supernatural thing. It’s such a perfect alibi, such an excuse, such a cop-out. Imagine other people trying that. The boss, the landlord, the merchant. ‘Hey! Where’s my paycheck? My roof just collapsed! Where’s that shipment of éclairs?’ Silence. ‘Hey!! Where do we go to file a grievance? How do we re-negotiate the contract?’ Some guy in a mitre strolls up. ‘You don’t, of course. The CEO is transcendent, the CEO is supernatural, the CEO is ineffable, and dwells in a region apart. Obviously you can’t re-negotiate anything. Have a nice day.’ Guy in mitre strolls away again. You’re screwed.
And people sign up to this arrangement voluntarily. It’s staggering. ‘Yes, please be the boss of me and tell me what to do based on outdated oppressive rules and hierarchies and never let me think rationally about any of it because that would be Displeasing to The Great Absent One. Thank you so much, now would you please kick me as hard as possible? Thank you and come back soon.’
Transcendence is a beautiful thing.
Apologies to one and all who may find this a bit glib, but the increasingly easy-peasy answer, based on some intersting if early research indications, is that some of us may be hardwired for blind faith, and the rest not; one assumes that this short-circuitry may take many many thousands of years to correct itself. By natural selection, not ID, of course.
Better get a library card then…
actually, there has been a new one. Bahá’u’lláh came on the scene about 150 years ago. though he saw himself as more of a manifestation of god than a prophet. Mohammed and Jesus were also manifestations, there are others, i think Krishna and the Budda. They appear roughly every 1000 years and update the holy law, so the Koran for example is perfect but outdated (?). Women are complete equals, but are not to be allowed into the ‘universal house of justice’ (you know, all the gossip and other silliness) and gays are not to be stoned but, must, well, not be gay.
so, we’ll be ok for the next 850 years.
“Bahá’u’lláh” – which also inspired the makers of the first klaxons on the Model T Ford, onomatopoeiacally speaking; this is less impressive than being remembered for the classic water/wine gag, but more polite than Moses ‘holy goddamn shit, wassup with that bush ?’ comments up mount Sinai. Well, it was early.
This is typical western imperialist thinking. History has shown that a self-perpetuating, autocratic theocracy can bring many benefits to society. Possibly not to all members, but to the people who matter. You must weigh the very real danger of offending deeply held religious beliefs against the theoretical benefits of such liberal PC shiboleths as ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘common bloody sense’.
Now that was pretty damn abstract…
The hard-wired thing is so depressing. I do so hope it’s not true…
In one way it would seem pretty unlikely to be selected. It would make the possessor so vulnerable. ‘Step off that cliff and something wonderful will happen to you.’ ‘Okay.’ So much for that gene.
But that’s only one way.
Yeah, but the guy who can persuade you to step off the cliff has a pretty good chance of survival. Incidentally, that ridiculous word keeps turning up.. twice on B&W now in two days. I kind of expect it from JGH, but I would be obliged, OB, if you would cage it in scare quotes; otherwise I might begin to think that you have found some meaningful definition for ‘transcendence’ and lapse into catatonia.
Which word?
Exactly – the person who can persuade you to step off the cliff has a pretty good chance of survival, but that person is not the one hard-wired to believe blindly – that person is the one exploiting other people’s hard-wired tendency to believe blindly.
Actually, this whole blind faith thing could work for group survival. In the unlikely event that I found myself in charge of a pre-literate, semi-nomadic bronze age tribe, and making the rules, then that is probably the way I’d go.
Your tribe is going to be pretty fearless in war – afterlife sorted, ruthless – qualms quashed, stable – unchallengable rules, fertile – women in their place.
That bunch of long-hairs in the next valley asking themselves if there could be more than one explanation for thunder are going to get their asses kicked before they can say ‘Can’t we talk about this?’
Just because something is morally loathsome is doesn’t mean it can’t be a competitive advantage.
The optimist me hopes that since the bronze age that advantage has diminished. On the other hand …
Yeah but group surivival doesn’t work at the level of the gene. At least so I’ve been told.
No? that’s beyond my level of expertise, but I’m surprised. Tribes and kinship groups? No doubt someone can shed light. But how about at the memetic level? However the poison gets into the system …
Not in our genes
Hardwired (nativist) explanations of cultural institutions are extremely unlikely to be true, and to my mind are nothing but puerile tosh. “The undoubtedly genetically based predisposition of small children to absorb and believe what their parents tell them creates a fertile breeding ground for mental ‘viruses’ such as religious dogma.”* These are products of brainwashing, not biogenetic inheritance. We have this one recognised process, what possible explanatory need is there for the other? That some of us are more gullible than others may well be genetic, that some of us share the stupidities of our culture most definitely isn’t. I’m with Occam and Dawkins. Lecture over.
*These are the words of Richard Dawkins or Paul Leigh reporting Richard Dawkins; I’m not sure.
_
It’s not that tribes and kinship groups are not useful, of course, but selective pressures work on individual genes, not on groups. At least so I’ve been told. (I have zero expertise, myself.)
But sure, tribes and kinship groups are obviously useful, so advantages get passed on culturally.
But it seems to me to cut the other way at least as much. Yes, blind faith makes you fearless – but being fearless can be damn dangerous! Being fearless doesn’t always promote survival. And being more ruthless, more qualm-free – more resolved, more like George W Bush – can get you into wars that more squishy people manage to stay out of. And blind faith is one excellent way to whip up hatreds (as we are becoming so hideously well aware).
I don’t know…It just doesn’t seem like a sure-fire survival advantage to me.
Crossed with Adam.
If gullibility is genetic, let’s get in there and do some genetic engineering!
Just kidding. I think.
Re: Not in our genes
Correction
That some of us are more gullible than others may well be genetic, that some of us share the stupidities of our culture most definitely isn’t.
That some of us are more gullible than others may well be genetic, the stupidities that some of us share with our culture most definitely aren’t.
There, that’s better! (Nothing to do with your point, Ophelia)
_
Epilepsy (or certain forms of it) often correlates with extreme religiosity, so part of it seems like it could be hard-wired. Memes can be successful without being beneficial to the host. So I would guess that the thing that allows the meme to propagate in the first place (our intelligence) outweighs the negative effects of the religious meme (if it turns out that they are negative).
Not that I have any expertise either!
Yes, it saves them having to think, but that’s a harm as well as a benefit – since it saves them having to think by forbidding them to think. So which law is better to live under, one that is based on reasons that are in principle discussable, or one that is set in stone?
If in doubt, use the Veil of Ignorance. You don’t know where you will stand in this society, so you don’t know if the law will put you in one of the groups that are systematically subordinated or exploited. That makes such laws look a bit different…
‘.So which law is better to live under, one that is based on reasons that are in principle discussable, or one that is set in stone?’
I’m sorry, Ophelia. but I seem to remember winning this argument a long time ago.
It’s late, I should go to bed, but didn’t we cover this two hundred fucking years ago?
Wasn’t there someone called Voltaire? I mean, I’m willing to compromise, but how many times does it have to be said?
We won the arguement. We have the moral high ground. So fucking what? So did Tom Painne and Mary Wollstoncraft and how much do they count for?
Sorry. it’s been one of those days.
Oh, they count for plenty. Plenty. The Enlightenment hasn’t been repealed, you know! Where would Europe and North American and much of the rest of the world be now if it weren’t for Voltaire and the gang? Things could be a lot better, but they could also be a lot worse.
Not to sound like Little Nell or anything.
Now…come on, folks. Do you seriously think I’m not aware of that? Does B&W strike you as too lenient on religion and anti-rationalism?
What Tingey said! Come on, Ophelia, tell us what you really think about religion. Stop your mealy-mouthed backpeddling equivocation and stand firm, dammit!