Early in Kurt Vonnegut's "Cats Cradle" he includes the warning "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either." Hence my question. There is much debate about the existance of god and if it exists than, which religion got it right, but my question is, does it matter? If a religion is useful, and enables people to lead better, happier lies, then does it matter if its true or false? In the book, an example is given of a religion that allows people to be happy despite living in terrible conditions, but is this practical in real life? Taking this further, If the adherents of one religion are happier and more productive than those of another. Wouldn't the prior religion still be be preferable if the latter was proved to be correct? The way I see it, religion serves a valuable purpose in many people lives. If one is able to find comfort from misfortune by believing in some non-existant higher power, why should anyone want to convince them of the truth about that higher-power?
Every religion is based on a lie – a promise of immortality. Whether this makes people happy or productive is irrelevant. The false hope that eventual non-existence is avoidable seriously discourages any concerted attempt to find a real solution to involuntary death. Religion can serve no useful purpose since it portrays death as a gateway to something better or even a paradise whereas the ugly truth is that death is decay and the permanent cessation of existence. If people can be convinced that they must face this reality then I suspect it will stir in them an overwhelming desire to find real solutions. For this reason the truth about religion must be explored and exposed as the tragic fraud that it is.
What if there was a situation in which people lived in terrible conditions and had no means of bettering their situation or escaping, and a religion was instituted which distracted them from their problems and let them feel they were part of something important?
If a group of people were so weak willed that they could not organize themselves sufficiently to control their own environment then they do not deserve happiness. They may as well be lemmings. I cannot personally imagine a condition where I would prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than deal with reality.
CA, And the driving influence behind those beliefs is a deep rooted desire to escape the inevitability of death. Would anyone follow a religion if they were actually immortal?
You may well be right, but this seems a little too simplistic to me. Do you argue, for example, that all religions offered such an escape? What of the Greco-Roman Pantheon? I have no doubt but that religion was spawned by a fear of, and concern about, the various natural forces that were, at one time, beyond understanding. Gods were functional, and proper ritual might well secure good hunting, good crops, and success in dealing with one's enemies. But talk of "lies" and "escape" seem unnecessarily loaded - even zealous (if I can borrow a phrase).
CA, Perhaps, but I’m not so sure. I suspect I could draw a meaningful boundary between the general acceptance of a duality paradigm and of the time before that. The current state of modern religions, and I think most of them, include variations on the concept of a life spirit/soul that survives death. That this is the primary basis for their beliefs is clouded by the considerable mythology, rules, mysticism, ceremonies, and dogma that people often confuse as being the real purpose of religion. But if you strip away all that dross from each religion then what remains is a common and fundamental root belief that death is survivable. Compare two very dissimilar religions like Buddhism and Christianity. In the end both assume the underlying basis is a variation on an afterlife concept. The Greeks and Romans certainly seem to have had the concepts of an underworld and Hades for example, what I can’t quite capture is whether they also had the concept of a soul or one of its variations. I am sure my sweeping statement of ALL religions cannot be supported, at least not for ALL religions of ALL times, but today’s religions, perhaps I can, or pretty close – but there are currently several thousand world religions and I have certainly not checked many of the smaller ones. But I’d be very surprised if the modern idea of an eternal spirit variation of some type is not present in the vast majority. Yes I agree. The idea of an afterlife does not seem to be prominent in those old stories. I need to dig deeper. For 'lie' I would agree. A lie implies an intention to deceive and I don’t think early mystics that created most of our religions thought that what they were proposing was false. They simply had vivid imaginations and flair to convince others that prefer to be led, and hence religions were created and took hold. One exception at least might be the Mormons whose founder does seem to have been a con-artist looking to make a profit. But ‘escape’, I disagree, I believe that this is a fair comment and does reflect what most people who follow the major religions expect to occur when they die. They would use other terminology but I think the essential concept will be present in most cases.
First of all, thanks for the thoughtful response. There is a difference between saying that most people who follow a religion believe in life after death, and saying that belief in life after death is what motivated the pervasive rise of religion or sustains today's religious institutions. It seems to me that both ancient religions and today's Pantheism, Deism, and Daoism serve to falsify the causal claim. I don't believe that religion is/was based on a web of lies but, rather, a web of questions and for the most part honest (though flawed) answers- sort of an institutionalized marriage of prepubescent science and prefeudal civics.
CA, I agree, yet I believe that the avoidance of death is the underlying motivation, both from the sense of practically and psychology. But to be honest and state that one believes in a religion because one hopes to cheat death is simply not the honesty encouraged by religions. This honesty is hidden behind the complexity of the rules that one must follow to achieve the ultimate goal. Once one comes to terms with the simple aim that ‘I hope there is more after death’ then one must engage in the complex rituals and required daily living standards that qualify one for the afterlife. The real root is tiny and hidden under a massive camouflage of rules. It is no wonder that people become confused as to why they follow their religion. The Christian promise comes from the claim where Jesus says ‘believe in me and you shall have everlasting life’. Combine that with the terror threat that if you don’t then you will burn in hell, then you have the basic primeval motivating forces to follow that religion, i.e. strong instinct to survive and fear of intense pain. The 99% remainder of the religion is just window dressing. I’ll ignore the ancients for now since I’m more interested in present day, but the others are tiny in comparison to the afterlife religions that dominate 5 sixths of the world population. That 85% of the world expects some form of afterlife seems to my mind to meet my qualification of ‘most’. I agree but we are talking about a minority of thinkers who set these ideas in motion. Most people, I believe some 95%, do not think for themselves and follow leaders and dominant ideas. For them they see and think in simple terms, what is in it for me and just tell me what to do. But most if not all at sometime in their life face the realization that at some point they will die. That they then believe that there is a kindly and loving super father figure that will take care of them when they die is the illusion that drives them to support that religion. Contrast these dominant religions with say Deism that has a God that wound up the clock, started it and then left to do something else and doesn’t promise an afterlife, is to many a very rational religion. That its followers are only measured in thousands instead of billions is a big clue that if you don’t offer an afterlife then you don’t have much to offer. Although it is significantly hidden under a deluge of ritual I firmly believe that most people who follow a religion do so because they expect a reward of a life beyond death and if you take away that promise then religion will fizzle out. I’ll make a prediction that when neuroscience can explain every aspect of the human brain and man can create electronic or bio/electronic equivalents then the belief in a soul/spirit will fade away very quickly, at least for most. At that point the dominant religions will rapidly use their credibility and will largely die out. If there is nothing that can survive death then the remaining aspects of most religions become pointless or can be more easily accomodated in non-religious philosophies and lifestyles.
Chris, I seem to detect some shifting sands here. As in the past, you start out demonizing religion ... "Every religion is based on a lie" "Religion can serve no useful purpose " "Religion must be explored and exposed as the tragic fraud that it is." ... but end with an elitist dismisssal of people in general. All of this is summarized in your "I agree, but" mantra. So, do you want to discuss 'religion is the bane of humanity' or '95% of humanity is the bane or religion'?
CA, I take the devils advocate approach in many topics. You misunderstand. I offered this as a largely objective view. For many things in my life I am part of a 95% group. This is how society appears to operate with only some 5% who make things happen and who make the decisions that affect the vast majority. There is nothing elitist in this observation. In religion you know that if someone is born in a particular country then there is a very high probability that they will adopt the religion of that culture. They have been effectively absorbed into the 95% and not made their own independent decision. This is not so much a criticism of humanity, just an observation. Do you not see the same thing? They appear significantly intertwined.
As an atheist, I don't believe in devils, but you're right - I misunderstoof and misrepresented your 95% reference. You have my apology.
Some environments are less productive than others. If you live in a place with no natural resources or viable farm land and have no way of leaving and have no other option than to eke out a meager poverty level existance, then isn't it better to believe that its all for a purpose and that your suffering will be rewarded than to live in despair and anger?
Aren't you supposed to quit reincarnating once you've become enlightened? I thought that was what Buddha taught, not the promise of more life but of less. Getting back to the first question, I will always try to strife for truth, no matter how painful it is. I would suggest the same for others, but who am I to say what is right for them? Maybe some people can't accept this beautiful universe as it is and have to believe in a false religion - their loss, though
When the reincarnating is over with. ---------- LostIT, this is a very good question! I've given it some thought and I believe this to be true. The spiritual ideal would be to achieve enlightenment and forevermore be in spiritual form. We come back in bodily form to learn those things that bring us toward the ultimate enlightenment (i.e. spiritual life without a body). I suppose this is my foremost problem with Xianity which teaches we must go through Jesus to get to heaven (enlightenment). The message Jesus was trying to give us was how to attain personal enlightenment of the soul. Of course, this message got twisted by Paul and the RCC, the rest is history and for 2000 years, Xians remain unenlightened as their souls are ensnared on the Earthbound plane.
