Yes exactly.

Yes, that's about all most religious institutions seem to offer today. I'm talking about a different sense of the word. I understand the objection to using that word but I haven't found a suitable replacement yet.

Practiced in the sense that I am addressing here, liberation from the rigid bond of ego identity, which is the natural state of Homo sapiens until and unless a disciplined intervention is applied.

@skado "Rigid bond of ego identity"? What does that mean to you? Our ego is simply a sense of self. I do wish wish to be "free" from self actualization.

@JustAskMe
Yes it's a sense of self, the one we were born with, and the one most of us identify with our whole lives. And as such, Dear Mother Nature (evolution) has seen fit to attach all our survival instincts to it; fear of death or injury, the discomforts of appetites, jealousy, envy, competitiveness, resentment, and so on. So it's like we are trapped in a shooting gallery and all these instincts are firing away at us night and day, and there is no escape from it. With a bit of luck and some effort most of us are able to find ways to cope with this never-ending storm, but left to Nature's design, we are never able to come in out of the rain.

A few thousand years ago some enterprising fellow discovered that our rigid bond of identity with this sense of self was not unbreakable. I say rigid bond because I suspect it's not possible or even desirable to abandon the ego entirely. I don't see how we could function without its services running at least in the background. But when we are convinced it's who we are we are "bound" to the struggle between our animal nature and our loftier ideals.

By loosening this bond of identity, someone figured out, we can be liberated from samsara, the endless cycles of push and pull we are subjected to by our belief that ego is who we are. And our minds won't do that naturally. It's an artificial workaround invented by humans that requires developing a skill through practice. This, I think, is the original esoteric core of all major world religions. But it was, and is, primarily a monastic practice, not something shared openly with the laity. Or that's my sense of it anyway.

What do you mean by self actualization?

@skado I couldn't disagree more. What you are calling human instinct are merely human emotions (such as fear and jealousy, resentment and competitiveness) .. Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say and further discussion seems to make the waters even more murky. ... I think I'm done.

That's all about right when you use the word religion to refer to organized religion as it stands today. Like most words, religion has several meanings.

@Allamanda
Rarely? Which religion does not have, as its very centerpiece, a soteriological path? And which non-religious philosophy does?

@skado Well some forms of Buddhism don't.

@Fernapple
Examples?

@skado Secular philosophical Buddhism.

@Fernapple
If it is secular, by definition, it is not religious.

@skado Granted yes. Shinto and Animism.

@Fernapple
I don’t know much about Shinto, though I don’t doubt there are minor religious sects that don’t fit the norm, but the religions with the strongest soteriological focus, namely Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism comprise over 50% of the human population, and over 60% of the world’s religious population. I just don’t see how that makes it “rare”.

@skado It was Allamanda who said rare, not me.

@Fernapple
Yes, that @Allamanda is a troublemaker! ( )
But it seemed that you answered my question in place of her, so I just carried on from there.

@Allamanda
I know we don't, and my contention is that by not using it we hand its power over to those who misunderstand or abuse it. It's a personal campaign of mine; I don't expect everyone to hop on that train. Also... I'm still open to using a different word if I can find one that has the same historical recognition and means the same thing without the corruption, but I haven't found it yet, and none of the people who disagree with me on this point have found it either.

@Allamanda
And my question to you still stands: If a majority of world religions contain in their doctrines a path to enlightenment, why shouldn't we use that word?

@Allamanda
So shall we refer to it as spiritualism from now on?

@Allamanda
To my mind the two words (religion and spirituality) are certainly related but not completely interchangeable. Spirituality means the condition of being spiritual, and spiritual means incorporeal, which is exactly what emotions are. They are not material things. So spirituality to me suggests an awareness of one's emotional states. When the new-agers say I'm spiritual but not religious I think they mean they are aware of and acknowledge their non material, or mental/emotional/intuitive side, but they don't have a particular practice that helps them manage it (and don't want one). If they were to take the next step and add some kind of regular practice, such as meditation, then they have crossed the line from being aware, to doing something about it, and we need a word for that as distinguished from just an acknowledgement of being an emotional creature. We need a word for spiritual practitioners. Historically that word has been "religious".

@Allamanda
The first word doesn't have to be the last word. If there is time and space for it, we can always elaborate, but when there isn't, we need a single word. As with my use of the word emotional; of course I know it doesn't cover the entire subject comprehensively, but when trying to get an idea across, we have to simplify to avoid it becoming such a run-on sentence that the thrust of the idea is lost in the process.

If someone is "going through the motions blindly" I would simply call that person an insincere, or false, practitioner, or a sincere practitioner of a false, or corrupted, religion. But if there is false practice, then that suggests that there is a practice that is genuine. What do we call a person who is going through the motions sincerely, with eyes wide open? I would call that person genuinely religious, as opposed to falsely religious.

@Allamanda
What I hear you saying (correct me) is "the persons suited to false religion are not necessarily the questioners, the ones who want more than false religion can offer" while you agree there can be a genuine version of it. And if that is what you're saying, then we are in full agreement.

@Allamanda
We agree on the issues; we just like to use different words to describe it. So when I hear you saying religion, I'll mentally translate that to false religion, if, when you hear me say religion, you'll translate that to genuine religion. Deal??

@Allamanda
...through practice, not just wishful thinking.
In my mind religion means practice, not belief.

@Allamanda
A spiritual person may be seeking, but they have no method; they are just wandering in the desert. A religious person has a codified practice.

@Allamanda
I'm not trying to suggest that wandering is purposeless, or that practice comes with guarantees; I'm just saying that they are different phenomena, and as such need different names.

@Allamanda
Just my opinion.

@Fred_Snerd WTF does this have to do with the issue or my comment???

@Fred_Snerd not anger, snerd, just incredulity at such inane unrelated reply.

@Fred_Snerd same to you, but with a good morning.

@Allamanda I think that philosophy is more about understanding than controlling.

@Allamanda I don't understand. Reasoning that a gun pointed at you can kill you if the trigger is pulled doesn't decrease the fear.

@Allamanda Let's try to cross the gulf. Can you give me an example of a fear and the philosophy that controls it?

@Allamanda I guess I would have to believe that there is a monster under the bed to understand. Why would I believe that there is a monster under my bed?

@Allamanda As a child that fear was alleviated by looking under the bed with a flashlight. That's more science than philosophy.

@Allamanda Thanks for sticking it out. I think that I understand where you are coming from now. I don't consider reason to be "brute force of mind to contol fear". For me it is the natural default. I was raised by skeptical atheists.

The uncorrupted form is designed to be the antidote to cognitive dissonance, and of course the corruptors turn it upside down. That’s what corruptors do, like calling legislation that takes self- government out of the hands of citizens “Citizens United.” That’s how they work. There’s a reason Caesar didn’t like Jesus. (I’m talking about metaphorical Jesus.) He (Caesar) didn’t want the people to be liberated. How can aristocracy steal the labor of people who are no longer willing to be slaves?

I give up, your use of "thinking" and the mashing together of "apples & oranges" simply leaves me reeling.

That’s certainly true of the corrupted form.

@skado There is no other form that is relevant.

@KKGator
I respect that that has been your experience.

@skado Don't you think ALL religion has been corrupted to it's current form?

@KKGator
Well, pretty much, yes. But that’s not to say that it always was, or that there might not still be pockets of authentic practice. And the corruption in no way reflects the authentic original.

@skado It doesn't matter what "was" or what "might be".
All that matters is what IS.

@KKGator
I understand that it doesn’t matter to you.

Not intended as definitions; just musings.

@skado No issue, I have done so myself many times.
My favorite deepity is from Daffy Duck
"Plaid is the suede which grows on the lawn."

An example that we're all familiar with would be Buddha, but the historicity of that character might be debatable, so a contemporary example might be someone like Shinzen Young, whom I'm reasonably well convinced has achieved this kind of development. He practices in the Buddhist tradition, but Buddhism is just a "brand" of cognitive development. It could be practiced in the Christian tradition or in no tradition at all. It's a human potential. The names we give it don't matter.

Yes, it has come to that.

I’m not trying to make a comprehensive definition, but speaking more about essences that I believe (correctly or incorrectly) are at the heart of our impulses to make the philosophy and religion that you and I, and the general public know. It’s more of a question than a declaration of fact; just an attempt to initiate a discussion.

How can you know?

@skado Religion never made me feel free. People claimed it did but I did not feel it.

@DenoPenno
Thanks. I see what you're saying; it was never liberating for you. You're in good company there; you are not alone.

Good video. Thanks for posting. I'll be watching it more than once.

I do think it's extremely important to develop our rational capacities; we need more of that in our world today, rather than less. But I don't see religion as the antithesis of reason. I see them as partners. Religion is not in competition with reason just as art is not in competition with science. We are complex beings, not just one thing.

When we dream at night, those dreams are sometimes full of misery, torture, fear and lies... and worse. They are nonsensical and totally irrational, but they are a part of us that is undeniable. I think it's better to be able to look at that part of our nature squarely, unblinkingly, and embrace it, dance it, sing it, and let it go, than to deny it, and bottle it up until it overwhelms us.

I think we need reason for dealing with the mundane and practical side of life, and we need it now more than ever, but we also need art to express the unknowable and ephemeral, in order to be whole human beings. What do you think?

@skado Well, What do I think? Thoughts and expression are free and think the way make you feel satisfy and comfortable. The only competition and partnership I see is between religions.
Explain to me these:

• Religion, in its uncorrupted form, is controlling fear passively, through cognitive development.
• Religions offer liberation.
  This make me think "What in the world he is thinking?"

[merriam-webster.com] › dictionary › uncorrupted
Definition of uncorrupted. 1 : not subjected to corruption : not decomposed. 2 : free from moral corruption : not debased or made corrupt though his associates were dishonest, he remained uncorrupted uncorrupted values.

Liberation? Of what?

What do you think about this expression?

PATHEOS.COM
Pennsylvania Lawmaker Brian Sims Confronts Anti-Abortion Protesters

@Cecilia2018
The religion you don't believe in, I also don't believe in. I think that someone several thousand years ago discovered a human potential to overcome psychological suffering, and various religious practices grew up around those ideas because science had not been conceived of yet. We now call those practices religions, but at the time they were just considered good ideas, or "laws".

Then as religions grew in prominence the aristocracy started to see them as a threat to their power and tried to destroy them. When they were unable to destroy them they infiltrated them and redirected them toward a watered down version that was no longer a threat to the power structure. That watered down version is what I am calling corrupted religion.

Now religions have been corrupted so long that thinking people have come to believe that corrupt religion is the only kind that ever existed. But the core feature of authentic religion is nothing more or less than a human capacity for overcoming psychological suffering. And that capacity still exists, whether we "believe in it" or not. It's not a matter of belief. It's a biological fact.

It requires practice to achieve, but what the practitioner is "liberated" from is their capacity for suffering.

I agree with Brian Sims completely. The "fake morals" and "broken values" are exactly the "corrupt religion" that I am speaking about. That does not mean that "real morals" and "real values" and "real* religion" do not exist.

@skado No that is incorrect, because most of the fear and psychological suffering are the creation of religion in the first place. Things such as our, perhaps genuine but naturally very slight, fears are exaggerated vastly by religion in order to pose wrongly as a saviour.

And that began even in the days of the very early shamanistic religions, around the nomadic hunter gatherers camp fires. The shamen and witch doctors were the first aristocrats using fear to control, long before technologically advanced societies developed military and secular aristocratic structures. Religion was not corrupted, because religion was and is the origninal form of corruption, the first major confidence trick.

@Fernapple
I’d love to know what evidence you base that assumption on.

@Fernapple , Nice!

@skado For evidence there is the activities of almost all religions, which may be freely observed, and you will find a huge range of accounts, and videos of shaman without looking any further than the net.
In for now while you look them up, here is a short story about the fear of want.

                                                                        :

One day a large gang of apes were hunting in the forest when they came to a tree, which fruited only rarely, but they always looked for it when they passed, because the fruit though uncommon was especially delicious. This however was a good year, and there was a small crop of fruit on the tree. The apes soon had it all picked, and then shared it out according to their custom. Then suddenly, just as they were about to start eating, the the son of the fairly clever ape, who was also very selfish and greedy like his father, stood up and said. “I think that I should be given three extra of the finest and best fruits from this tree, as well as my normal share.” Naturally all the others wanted to know why they should do this, and so, after a suspiciously long pause, he began to speak.

“You should give me this extra fruit as my payment, for talking to this tree with a special kind of secret talk, which only I know. Because inside the tree there is hidden a tree spirit, which only I can see and speak to, and if I speak to the tree and say just the words, then you can be sure that it will yield more fruit next year.” “In fact, it is because in the past the correct words were not always said to it, that this tree has not always given us all the fruit we could have wanted. And moreover the tree would wish that because I am its friend I should be rewarded”

Most of the apes thought that this was just too silly an idea, and they laughed at him and called him foolish. There were however among the band just a few who thought that, just in case he was telling the truth, it might be worth a small number of fruit; but since most of the apes were not in favour and mocked them for agreeing with the son of the fairly clever ape, they did nothing.

The son of the greedy and fairly clever ape was however very persistent, and kept on repeating his request every time they came to a new tree. After a while, when they saw how determined he was, more and more of the apes began to waver, and soon some of them did indeed start to give him part of their fruit. Even though it often meant that they went hungry themselves.

And in that day was religion born.

@Fernapple
Don't worry; you can tell that story as many times as you like, but I will never start to believe that is anything other than a made up story to further the preferred worldview of the writer, just as the story itself depicts. What it is not, is evidence. Religion didn't start the suffering; agriculture did. Religion evolved as a corrective for the ills of civilization. Check the dates. Organized religion came after the invention of agriculture.

@skado Yes it is a made up story to further the world view of the writer, a metaphorical story, I wrote it especially for you since you seem to like to read the bible that way, for metaphorical evidence in made up stories, designed to further the views of the writers. Though as you know, I think that there is a lot more complexity to the bible than that.

But please do not straw-man me, at no time did I say that I was talking about 'organized' religion. Quite the contrary, my points are about religion as a whole, including pre-agricultural religion. Since the true evils of religion, as I thought the story would at least made plain, go back deep into its roots far beyond that, and the horrors that it causes were already age old long before Göbekli Tepe (which predates agriculture ) was a dream in an achitects mind, and the beginings of organized religion.

@Fernapple
I appreciate the creative effort, but while I do say that truth can be told with metaphor, I don't claim that you can make a false statement true just by tossing in a metaphor or two.
I'd like to understand the truth of what you're saying, but nothing I've read leads in that direction. Can you give me the name of a writer or a book or an essay or something where I could catch a glimpse of the underpinnings of this hypothesis? To be clear I'm talking specifically about the idea that the deepest roots of religion are based in greed and deception. If I go looking I won't know what to look for, and the internet is endless. If they are so handy please send me a link. Opinion sites don't count - everybody's got 'em. A reputable source please. with evidence, not opinion. Thanks.

@skado Yes here you go some literal proof. A documentary on a traditional shaman, note especially the use and promotion of the fear of spirits,

Here is another one. Note please the promotion of invisible spirits, who control everything, even the engine and the fish.

@Fernapple
Your claim as I understand it, please correct me where I’m wrong, is two-fold. You’re claiming that religion has as its primary purpose an intent to defraud the masses for the gain of wealth and power (control) accruing to the priests, shamans, or whatever the religious officials are called. And secondly, that this is the original motivation for the creation of religion. Am I correct?

@skado Correct. The bottom line is that people sometimes have irrational fears, especially of the unknown, which they will often attribute to the supernatural. That is called superstition. And when some people find that they can exploit other peoples superstition for profit and power, that is called religion.
There simply can not be any other possible history which fits the facts, and it must go back to the very beginings of superstition and language.

That is not to say that all religious leaders are evil exploiters. Cognitive dissonance and our ability to self delude meant that those doing the exploiting of others, often thought they had the best of intentions, ( our shaman are surely genuine ) whilst many people in the past within religion really did have good intentions but were forced to work within the evil system, or were unwitting victims themselves, because it was once the only system there was.

@Fernapple
“There simply can not be any other possible history which fits the facts, and it must go back to the very beginings of superstition and language.”

What you’re practicing is the atheists’ version of god-of-the-gaps reasoning, which I call devil-of-the-gaps reasoning: “I can’t see any possible good in this bizarre behavior, therefore it must be evil.”

‘There can not be any other possible explanation’ and ‘it must go back to the beginning’ are not phrases scientists use. They are opinions; not evidence.

In the videos you offer as “literal proof” there are zero mentions of greed or great transfers of wealth or power, not to mention the origins of religion. The only time science is even consulted, it verified that there were changes in the practitioner’s brain; not something that happens when the person is simply pretending or lying. Your videos support my position more than yours, and they are not even from scientific sources as I requested, but drawn from popular entertainment.

Bring me some anthropological studies, some historical studies, some line of reasoning, some data - something other than “it must be”.

@skado I do not claim to be a scientist, and I think that the demand for scientific evidence begins to sound like clutching at straws. There is probably scientific evidence, and if I have the time I will search for some for you. However there are many true things for which there can never be scientific evidence, and I would hold that long forgotten attitudes are one such. Yet some things are so banal that we can accept them as true anyway. Such as. There is no scientific proof that my front door exists, yet since I walk in and out through it every day, I am sure it does. And the the idea presented I would hold to be at least that banal in its nature. However as I say I will spend some time doing your research for you. Though why someone who glorifies the " metaphorical" truth of his main sources should require scientific proof, is beyond me, unless double standards are being employed.

I am certainly not using the god of the gaps argument however, since that can only be used by those who have the burden of proof, and since the debate started with your assertion, ( made without scientific proof, ) that religion not philosophy is the best control of fear. I am merely offering an alternative, with the assertion that it is the only possible route, and requiring a disproof of my alternative or a proof of your original position.

The videos certainly do offer evidence of greed and the transfer of power, they show little else, since I have no doubt that all of the shaman are being paid for their services. And since greed and power are a proportional, and as the services are of doubtful real benefit, beyond perhaps a minor placebo effect, any monetary charge or prestige gained is unjust, and therefore greed, even if the shaman is quite genuine in his beliefs. The young sales-person who sells second hand cars on the forecourt, may be unaware that their employer turns the mileage back, and genuinely believes that the customer is getting a great deal. Yet the customer is still being cheated.

@skado Here you go.
On the origins of superstition.
Skinner, B. F. "'Superstition' in the Pigeon", Journal of Experimental Psychology #38, 1947.

Haselton, M.G.; Buss, D.M. (2003). "Biases in Social Judgment: Design Flaws or Design Features?

Haselton, Martie G.; Nettle, Daniel; Andrews, Paul W. (2005). "The Evolution of Cognitive Bias"

On the relations of superstition to culture historically.

Henrich, Joseph; McElreath, Richard (2007). "Dual-inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution"

There is lots more and I am sure that following these leads will soon provide you with masses of data. However if you need more please ask. But for my part I consider that your request for scientific proof on a philosophical post, that was an assertion with out any, fully exposes the complete invalidity of your claim, and the double values which support it. I therefore regard this debate as finished and won, at this point.

@Fernapple
If you have lost interest in the subject of course you have no obligation to continue, but for the sake of any others who might be reading along, I’ll say a couple of things.

I don’t debate in order to prove myself superior. My only interests are learning, sharing information I feel is useful, and building interpersonal relationships. So, to me, one person can’t win and the other lose. When two people have come to understand each other’s point, whether or not they adopt it, then they have both won. When that doesn’t happen, they have both lost. But I do realize it can become tedious if no progress is being made.

The fact that you have sent me references on superstition and bias instead of on religion tells me I have failed to communicate my perspective adequately, but I do appreciate the chat, at any rate. Thanks.

@skado Not at all, I certainly have not lost interest, and I know enough of you by now to know that you do not debate for egotistical reasons. But you asked for scientific proof and I gave you what there is. Had I lost interest, I would have brushed you of with the "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." quote. As I see many here such as Atheist3, have effectively done at the top of this page. As for religion that comes not within the business of science, but within the discipline of history and the interpretation of history, which is largely subjective and therefore not scientific. However I am more than prepared to continue with that.

While still standing by my point that, demanding scientific proof for the argument against religion, while supporting the argument for it with unqualified assertion, is a prime example of the double thinking, and double standards, which a sentimental attachment to such discredited thought systems is bound to lead you to. I too find a attraction to the great confidence tricks of history, the con-man always has an appeal if only because of the swagger, and the great subtlety required to carry it off, as the layers of deceit build up in ever increasing complexity. But there comes a time to put such immature attachments behind you. Because you eventually understand that they can only be harmful to your character and integrity, when once you start accepting double standards, the erosion of intellectual honesty, and all the better qualities of character and judgement begins to slide at an every increasing pace. And the corrosive effects of religion are all too often to be observed in, people who once had their chance to be good and honest.

PS. Don't worry too much about the others who may be viewing this debate, I think that most people lost interest in our debates long ago. We are quite alone.

@Fernapple
I don't remember asking for scientific proof. I'm asking you to help me understand what evidence you are relying on to form your opinion. Evidence doesn't always constitute proof, but it is better than just pure assumption. Just a sound line of reasoning can be considered evidence, especially if it contains references to some known facts of history. Proof, as you say, is not likely to ever be available.

My line of reasoning for claiming that the term "religion" covers more than just a ponzi scheme designed to oppress the ignorant goes something like this:
It's my understanding that in scientific circles it is considered a rule of thumb that if a behavior is observed in virtually all populations of a species, and in all time periods of their existence, it is a pretty solid indication that the behavior is generated either directly or indirectly by the various processes of evolution. Every population of humans, in every known location, and in every time period throughout our two hundred thousand years of existence has practiced various behaviors anthropologists now refer to as religious. Whenever it has been suppressed, such as under Communism, the minute the ban is lifted the behavior resumes, and while it is outlawed, people practice in private. If there is no priest or shaman available to deceive and make profit, the people practice anyway.

I'm sure you have not lived your life without hearing dozens or hundreds of stories of how people maintained hope and survived harrowing difficulties by clinging to their faith. Being cheated doesn't inspire faith in people. Inspirational stories do, whether they are factually accurate stories or not. None of this kind of thinking is at odds with the scientific evidence on human psychology. People have a natural need to focus on a hopeful future. If no shamans were there to facilitate this need, the people would create one. Conversely, there are many instances of people losing hope and perishing either by giving up or committing suicide.

There will always be a few people who want to take advantage of the gullible, and there will always be a small percentage of the population who are susceptible to being cheated. But when at least 80% of the population, at this late date in history, still insists on believing in an inspirational idea, whether or not priests are even available to take advantage of them, it appears to me we are looking at a piece of human nature, not an entire species that has been victimized by a few genius criminals.

The science of Psychology acknowledges that humans are not primarily rational creatures. Sociology and Anthropology confirm that humans behave in ritualistic, and non-rational ways. The idea that they would not behave that way but for a handful of crooks controlling their every move from the beginning of time until this very day in all places where they have ever existed sounds more like a paranoid conspiracy theory than anything a scientific examination would reveal. Most of our kind are not accomplished intellectuals. They have a natural need not to be afraid of the future and crippled by shame of the past. They find that relief in stories. And yes, it makes them vulnerable to thievery, but the thievery did not create the need. I have seen no evidence to suggest that it did.

What rationale or body of thought claims that if there were no crooks, people would stop believing in hope, in transcendence, in forgiveness, or in compassion for those who don't necessarily deserve it? I'm not aware of any.

@Fernapple
If somebody told me to read a book in order to understand their perspective, I wouldn’t do it, so I don’t expect you to do it either, but as an example of the science behind my claim, biologist, John Wathey’s book, “The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing” makes sense of a lot of things that otherwise wouldn’t. Biologist E. O. Wilson said we are evolved to believe in gods. When you look at the scientists who have studied this kind of thing, there’s quite a lot of specific support for it.

@skado Thank you for the book, but I finished late last night and am working one step behind, here is my answer to your last.

If you understood the scientific evidence that I provided, then the rise of superstition is easily understood. The biological value of favouring false positive over the risks of false negative, for example. If I think I see an eye looking at me from between the leaves, it is better to treat it as such than to ignore it, and therefore I hide. If it is not an eye but only a glint on the leaves, then all I have wasted is a little energy and a few seconds, but if I ignore it then I could risk loosing a valuable meal or being eaten by a predator. So a false positive carries less cost than false negative, and as this is so for all species it is hard wired into our minds. There is also animism, it is easier to explain strange things that happen sometimes in terms of a metaphor, in which things are given anthropomorphic intentions, which being human ourselves and lacking the resources of science are easier to understand. If the rains always come in spring, then it is much easier to understand that the rising sun wakes the rain god in spring, than to try to understand global weather systems. And perhaps many other reasons.

So if we take the rise of superstition as a given, then for whatever reason some people will one day get the idea that they are controlling or influencing the supernatural forces, which are apparently produced by superstition. And since humans are hard wired for false positives, it is easy to see how they may get the idea that when some coincidence happens, perhaps several times, that correlation equals causation as they say. We went to the river and bathed, and the following day the rain came, that happened last year as well, therefore going to the river and bathing pleases the rain god and causes the rain.

It being human nature the idea soon comes that some people are better at certain aspects of this than others. When we went to the river this year it did not rain. What was different? The one with three fingers was not with us this year, maybe it is only the one with three fingers bathing that pleases the rain god. So next time the group make sure the one with three fingers goes too, and it does rain, and to make the one with three finger go they offer rewards, even perhaps just praise and flattery, but rewards none the less. And it does rain.

The next year they do the same but the rains do not come again. But it is hard to turn people from a path which brings them rewards, even just praise and flattery. So the one with three fingers has to invent an excuse. “Yes but it is only when I bathe three times.” And sooner or later it will rain, so that the three times excuse will seem to work.

Now here we come to the first possible false assumption which is that of of Vox populi. ( Numbers are not the defining quality of crime. If the village owns a slave, and everyone in the village kicks and beats the slave, that does not make the slave the criminal or the villages good. ) Because though in the end a separate class of priests may grow up, this does not happen at first. In fact it is in the nature of such things that what happens, is that as such ideas accumulate, it is quite likely that soon nearly everyone in the group has some special role in dealing with superstitious threats. The crime is one committed by everyone against themselves, all people are wasting time and resources and even their lives on mistaken superstitions which give no real benefit. Because what we are talking about is not yet organized religion, but human culture as a whole, since the separation of religion from the rest of culture is yet to come.

Biological evolution can not have foresight but only reacts to changes in the environment after the fact, taking perhaps millions of year to do so. So that when the technologies of language and culture are produced, we can have no hard wired filters built into our DNA, to separate the good effects of them from the bad effects. So that if language and culture bring any benefits, then we must go with that, and take the bad bits along with the good. Even if our culture comes with great and unnecessary costs, in terms of crimes creating unneeded suffering and the vast waste of time and resources, even human lives wasted, we still have to go with it , so long as the balance of benefits is even slightly in its favour.

But society grows more complex with time, natural dominance hierarchies are built into the culture, in more refined and complex ways, upward divisions of society. And people begin to specialize, the fisher the hunter the tool maker, sideways division. And it is almost certain, that as the rewards for demonstrating talents for regulating the supernatural grow, it is inevitable that some of the powerful and dominant will try to grab a larger share of those rewards and that craft. Becoming shaman and priest. So indeed is organized religion bound to come about, and when that happens then the natural human drives for personal advantage, are bound to work on that class, and they will try to get a bigger share of everything, power wealth, sexual partners for themselves, as do all classes. And since it becomes wealthy and powerful, especially because it has no need to produce any physical product, it attracts talented and able people, and it especially comes therefore to control the language related to more abstract ideas.

Yet there is bound to be a consequence of societies growing more complex, and that is that a complex society will always include sub-cultures. Once the small groups and tribes of human nomads all shared a single culture, with few differences, but eventually there are societies, where there is a subculture of farmers, one of smiths, fishermen, aristocrats, potters etc. as well as priests. And it is inevitable that sub-cultures will sometimes have conflicting ideas, motivations and superstitions. When that occurs, then the old idea of one single culture, which is universally understood, and “ours”, faces a challenge. And it is inevitable that some people will begin to ask questions, especially. Could it be that some of our sub-cultures have got things wrong ? Indeed could our culture contain mistakes ? They may have asked these questions before, but never to the same degree, or with the same urgency. And the only way to solve any problem is to think and talk about it. So that, at that point people begin to actively think about their beliefs and the nature of their culture, especially thinking about, if some of it could be in error, they may have done so before but never to the same degree as they do when once they can easily observe differences within the belief system. That then is the birth of philosophy. Later philosophy beings to question itself , and ask if its own methodology could be improved, and that leads to the birth of science. But I get ahead of myself.

At first philosophy is small and does not spread very far, as all new innovations with little immediate benefits, are bound to be. So that for most people society is still thought of as one culture with religion at its core, and many will never even hear of philosophy. So that for many years people with ideas, many of them very good ideas, will still keep expressing them in the language of cultures dominated by religion, simply because the don't have the language of philosophy available to them. So that you will find that an idea like the golden rule, which is invented many times by many different people is expressed in one place as a philosophical idea, and in another place by a different person as a religious one. Thus religion does indeed produce and foster much good.

But now there comes a problem, because when once philosophy is under way, it starts to answer and ask questions, and that puts it in competition with religion. Both economically, as a go to for answers, and directly because it starts to question some of the superstitious assumptions contained within a cultures religion. The effect of that is that each thought system seeks niche a magisterium if you like. But the problem with that is, that when once you are trying to hold separate niches it tends to drive you apart, as each tries to find clear ground to exploit. So that we see in the classical world that philosophers, start to provide answers for example to questions such as the fear of death. (I won't bother with examples they are not hard to find.) That in turn threatens religion which up to that point held a monopoly the mysteries of death and the afterlife. And if philosophy is, as it does, saying that death is nothing to fear, then it is needful that death should be proved even more fearful. So that we see that as philosophy grows in the classical world , and those who study it are increasingly saying that for various reasons it is not to be feared, so we find at the same time in the classical world, the dominant religion is inventing, hell and demons. ( And I know correlation does not always equal causation, but this is a side issue in my main direction so I will pass on that for now, it is late for writing, so do your worst tomorrow.)

The problem then comes that as philosophy grows, there is now an alternative narrative to that provided by religion. And moreover it is one which does not come with the superstitious baggage and errors that religion inherits from its past. It is therefore inevitable that whatever the benefits that religion brings, or brought in the past, many people will choose philosophy and later science as a path, simply because of that, thoughtful people will always chose the clearist and least muddy path. ( Some do try both paths but I my experience having one foot on two paths, ususually results in falling flat sooner or later.) The philosophies will therefore grow and increasingly attract able and thoughtful people, and a point will come, as it long since has, where the choice of religion will only be made by people who do not have pure motives, agendas, in other words. When that happens, then religion does indeed become a criminal activity, in which a few confidence tricksters attempt to delude large numbers, in any way they can. At that point to cling in a sentimental way to religions past glories, just because it did once do many good things, though at the price that, even then, it brought much evil with it, is a foolish and ultimately doomed enterprise which can only aid the criminals by giving them shelter and a veneer of respectability. The future of religion is to become an increasingly criminal activity, that can be its only direction, and that is observably the direction it is moving in, you can not hold back the tide.

@Fernapple
Thanks for sharing a fuller view of your worldview. I enjoyed reading it. It covered a lot of territory that I think is more or less accurate, but does not address the biological (evolutionary) component of religion. John Wathey. Or the metaphorical/psychological. Joseph Campbell.

Me neither.

@skado I'm afraid of the Holy Goat.

Religion that is composed of magical thinking is what I’m calling corrupt religion. Of course any religion is an amalgam of things; not just one. But at the risk of oversimplification, I think it’s safe to say the fear of death is central to all human fears. The Stoics had their prescriptions for taming that beast, and the Christians borrowed from the Greek philosophies that preceded them, and added the dimension of eternal salvation, which was understood by the laity in terms of a literal life after death.

Well, you could say that that might have alleviated some of the fear of death for the population. But the monastics, some of them, took it differently. They understood it to be a practice aimed at peace of mind in the here and now, much the same as some Buddhists do.

So for them, the resurrection was metaphorical, and symbolized the resurrection of the liberated mind, and so on. That was, and still is, the uncorrupted practice.

@skado That's interesting, but if everything is taken metaphorical rather than literal, it sort of undermines the idea.

Most religion is what you would call corupt. They believe in a literal sense that you go to hell or heaven when you die, get reincarnated, or that praying is heard.

If you think it's metaphorical, then that means that any story could be substituted so long as it keeps the same moral values.

Because so many stories borrow concepts from religious literature, but are not supposed to be believed literally, would that make them an uncorrupted religion?

False-security, at that.

@KKGator doesnt matter. we all go to the same place no matter what so what people need to make them feel better is fine by me as long as they leave me out of it.

@JeffMesser Aye, and therein lies the rub.
The believers can't keep their cognitive dissonance to themselves.
They insist on forcing their beliefs into public policy, which effects
everyone.

@KKGator I just finally figured some people aren't emotionally or intellectually ready to see beyond the tiny little sphere of a life they have constructed. it doesn't really matter they'll just keep creeping their way up life after life until they finally get strong enough to learn how to escape. they're not going anywhere else.

@JeffMesser There is no afterlife. There is no reincarnation.
There is absolutely no evidence to justify belief in either.

@KKGator opinions vary. doesn't matter what you think. you're still going to the same place. so think away!

@JeffMesser That's just it. No one is "going" anywhere.

@KKGator mmm hmmm

@OwlInASack I don't have the patience to explain it to you and you don't have the open mind to listen so get lost.

@OwlInASack I knew more about you than you did about me so get lost.

@OwlInASack you didnt make a serious inquiry. you made an assumption and you made it rudely. so take off.

@OwlInASack I would love too. There's a lot of research that has been done detecting the actual pulse of light when neurons fire in the human brain. MY contention is that this light IS us. I am a secular hindu because I wanted to find a belief system with a foundation in science. I found that like many others have in advaita vedanta. It basically impresses upon us that the world we think we see around us is all an illusion created in the mind. It's the illusion that our mind assembles and the computer bank with sensory inputs that makes up our body ... and all witnessed and interacted with by awareness. Which is us. The turiya of the mandukya upanishad. The 4th level of consciousness in both eastern and western psychology. We are the viewer.

Now it will take a long time to show you much of this, but I want to stress this last part first. The speed of light is a constant. This is because it has no mass thus it is not affected by time. This is the whole reason that newtonian physics only work in 3 dimensions. When you "quantumize" them it breaks apart. This is the hard gravity problem relating gravity in 3D to 4D. Gravity doesn't really exist. Space and time are intertwined in what Einstein called space-time. Space is actually bent over the period that time is lapsing and the objects newtonian intertia drives it into what 3D sees as "down". And we've tried calling those things "gravitons". But that's just a made-up name for the result we're getting. The result is just a differential in space-time experienced as downward momentum. In quantum reality there is no gravity. There are no little particles that make it nor magnetic forces causing it. It is merely a distortion in space-time that in 3D space we perceive as momentum. Thats newtonian physics.

Now let's examine another of those effects - consciousness. We surmise and have surmised for millenia of its' existence. But its' very nature defies our ability observe it. We know it exists by the inverse logic of the double slit experiment (among others). Even if we don't know what waveform annihilation actually means we at least know that our mere observation did, in fact, create a change in quantum space. But we're perplexed to measure it and so many (such as yourself) use this lack of objective data as absolute skepticism ... which is rather myopic. The very nature of our ability to gather data is OBJECTIVE. When the material is subjective you cannot gather information that way. There's literally no way to test it. Even though we know something is there. And therein lies the key.

It's a differential. Kind of like gravity going from 3D to 4D, this is taking 4D to 3D. Now I am going to tell you this differential is literally the light. We have to have some bond theoretically between 2 objects across the fricking galaxy to explain quantum entanglement. That's only possible if distance has no meaning. Hmmm, who do we know that's really fast and has no mass?? Light. Light is the literal method of information transfer between neurons, between cells, in fields etc... . Although we tend to think of light by our visual reference, it's actually a unit of WORK. Moving an erg over a period of time or space (which as the same right?).

Light actually changes little information streaks caused by probabilities in the substratum of the actual universe (vice this reality we think in our heads). This substratum is that spoken of 3,500+ years ago in ancient Hindustan and written into the upanishads in the Isa and Katha upanishads (among others). Light is KNOWLEDGE. It is also ETERNAL. It is also SERENE. satcitananda in sanskrit according to Sri Ramakrishna.

Awareness is that light. My contention is that the light created by neural impulses causes consciousness by tying us ever so slightly into that knowledge. At first it's just a single spot ... like a dark cave with but a tiny candle to shine. But now throw in NOTCH21NL mutations we have found by comparing our australopithicus ancestry DNA to that of homo heidelbergensis. This was an abnormality from a duplication error. When these cells split our DNA is subject to random errors ... especially in certain spots classified as unstable like chromosome 1 where this particular NOTCH enzyme is coded. The mutation in question occurred to a group of catalysts designed to make stem cells stop duplicating and start specializing. In the cerebrum of our brain as zygotes the stem cells that form neurons are multiplying. They split for a period of time to form a base population and then they specialize in neurons or other forms of cells. The higher the base population, the more dense the neuron population will be. The NOTCH21NL mutation caused the catalyst that speeds up that message to "back off". Thus the stem cells make a significantly higher base population from which to specialize which results in huge neuron density increases.

When the mutation first occurred we could tell it happened in ALL advanced primate ancestry. But the original mutation was dormant because the DNA copy was fractured. Primates carried that dormant NOTCH21 DNA fragment for millions of years. We have proven this by DNA. It wasn't until the hominids that led to man split off prior to I think Homo Heidelbergensis when the DNA fixed its' copies by a "copyover". This area of chromosome 1 is particularly susceptible to such errors due to the physical abnormalities of its' structure. Suddenly this NOTCH21 mutation kicked in and not only kicked in, but added TWO MORE NOTCH21 sites (now labeled ABC in our current DNA). So we had 3 more areas producing catalysts to make stem cells duplicate more before specializing. In the cerebrum this caused neuron density to increase 6-8 fold.

These things above are scientific fact. On the cutting edge of current technology. MY addition is the light part. I believe that light ties us to pure consciousness. the more light, the more conscious. Think about all those neurons firing now. We went from ONE that gave us a tiny glow in the cave to TRILLIONS. And the cool thing about it is light isnt bound by time. So distance means nothing - it's everywhere the moment it occurs. ANyway. Still working on it and it's taken me 30 years to date. There's much more also because string theory ties in for vibrations but I am tired of typing.

Now do you see why someone going "well just show something" isn't near as easy as it seems? you've invested nothing just by inquiring so if you're just going to scoff then get lost. I believe in science and I have some very bog names on my side. Whether you believe me or not the same thing is going to happen. jagat mithya ayam brahmasmi

@OwlInASack it's cool man. you just have to understand I am very involved in this. it's serious to me. I work on it all the time. So I am just not really gung ho to spill everything necessary to understand just to have someone type "well thats a lot of bullshit" and slink away. So I don't try to do that anymore. If people really do want to understand and will have an open enough mind to listen then there are a lot of very interesting issues to be explored. If they are still in the "angry with religion" phase then I'm really not therapy for them. I try to drive them away by being rude or telling them to bug off or simply not answering. there are people on here whose opinions I respect and they don't believe it. but they had enough of an open mind to listen. and there are some here who agree with me. I won't call them out. that would be rude.

It depends on how you define religion. Religioun is any faith based belief system of designated behaviours, morals and practices with an attemp to relate humanity to the "supernatural". It may or may not require worship or great devotion to a god/ gods.
Buddhism is still a religion even though it doesn't involve a god/ gods. It's a different kind of religion though in that it's less invasive and organised. I have more respect for Buddhism than the abrahamic religions for sure.