Mental Diarrhoea on Gods and Kings and Falling in line

[Asmodean]

[Disclaimer] Re-reading this post, it's an absolute disaster when it comes to making a point clearly, if at all. Enter at your own peril. Also, I do need to brush up on my foruming. This real life thing made rust in the moving parts.

It is an often-used moral debate tool of the atheist to ask his religious counterpart whether the only reason he or she does not rape, pillage and murder is because thses actions are not permitted by his or her deity. We often make this argument in almost mocking tones and contexts, well-aware that even the staunchest believer will usually have to admit - to himself if not everyone else - that it's not that simple at all.

So here I sit, musing to myself on what I consider to be rather profound underlying implications in such exchanges, chief among which is really a question: why follow a god? Why follow a king or a president or a priest? Or your parents, for that matter?

In the early stages of life, socially as well as individually, the answer is probably to be found deep within out survival instincts. You eat the red berries and you die. Monkey see, monkey do. However, how many otherwise sensible, well-educated and, even from my arrogant heights of high IQs, gilded crowns and frozen hearts, not at all unintelligent people are willing to proclaim that their god is their shepherd and, meaning it absolutely, that his command is the highest law.

Well, here is the thing; you don't have to follow a king. You don't have to follow your president. You don't need to listen to your father - for all those on the outside know, the man may well be a giant dildo in the first place. And so perhaps you do not follow either of those three. You defy your government, your society and your family. But when it comes to the word of God, no matter how twisted by your personal perception, that word is good and right and absolute - and those who say otherwise deserve death and eternal torment.

Why?

How much raw ego does it take to proclaim what anyone who disagrees with your God - disagrees with you - deserves just for that act of disagreeing? Egos do come in larger sizes than the one I posess, but not by much... And I don't pass judgement like that.  In any case, that is just one of many secondary points of some importance to arise from that simple question. Let's leave it for now.

I've read a story some time ago. It was about this fifteen year old kid who told his family that he was gay. He was kicked out of the house because gay is, for some people, several magnitudes worse than nazi or even a child molester. Why? All the usual reasons. A christian home, and there being no gay christians, the kid could not belong there any more. As if his life wasn't full of malicious bullshit as it was. Before, I would call those parents ten kinds of asshole with some to spare for their stereotypically-abusive-drunk of a Lord and Master. Today... Here I sit, and it occurs to me, that if I was given to hope, I'd hope those people would die and stand before their God. And I'd hope that being would be as good and, more importantly, as just as they professed. Hell? I'd laugh my way down there knowing that.

My point, I suppose, if I still am on any point at all, is this: Your god does not give you commands. At best, his so-called commands are to the flock as a whole. You are rightly beneath him. No more than the sheep you aspire to be in his flock. So why follow when he may well be leading you to the slaughterhouse? You think real shepherds tell their sheep "Come on, sheep, it's time to die" when they are about to become mutton? Few do, I think. Most probably walk in front of them with a bucket full of animal feed and the sheep, they follow the promise of good eating to come. Sound familiar? Well, it should. Run for the hills while you still can, little sheep. Run for the fucking hills.

Note that I'm not even touching the can of worms that is trying to objectively measure the subjective worthiness of a deity to be followed; I don't, despite the examples used. I know that never in my memory have I followed someone or something just because I thought they were worthy, nor have I hidden behind the crowns of the mighty when I was called to account. Ran and hid and tried my best to avoid any sort of liability? You betcha I did. But not ever by looking upwards on the social ladder for a shield.

I follow for a cause. On a cause-by-cause basis, I do. I suppose I may follow for love. And, of course, I do follow for profit. But I cannot concieve why someone would sell out their integrity, conscience and, for that matter, their own kids, for an abstract promise of eternal bliss for themselves. How can you even have that eternal bliss, having done all the vicious shit you've done or having stood silently by while others did it? How about after an eternity of having little to do but think about it? Does your heaven have free heroin with no side effects or something?

[Insoluble]

But I cannot concieve why someone would sell out their integrity, conscience and, for that matter, their own kids, for an abstract promise of eternal bliss for themselves. How can you even have that eternal bliss, having done all the vicious shit you've done or having stood silently by while others did it? How about after an eternity of having little to do but think about it? Does your heaven have free heroin with no side effects or something?

I reject your "abstract" word, for we believers it's all encompassing.
For to stay good with god ye must shun the ungodly, it's only logical.

Unsurprising you're troubled,
making sense of madness.
Ye good luck with that,
why are you doing that?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Do you think that all believers behave in the manner portrayed in your examples?

[Asmodean]

An excellent question, actually... And a complex one to answer fully.

Let us for the sake of this discussion not put my usual "define all" spin on it. To one degree or another, yes, I suppose most do. I may and do also have it all back-asswards when it comes to those who "merely" use their religion to justify personal agenda.

Also, it must be said that standing silently by while your clique commits mildly-put disagreeable acts is not at all unique to religion, but then again... Islamic extremists, Christian fundamentalists and other iron age morons, if you'll pardon the expression. Those are the groups that spring to mind first, and moderates within those same religions follow on their heels in terms of disagreeability of their (in)action.

Are there exceptions? Certainly. A voice here and there among the silnet masses, but rarely strong enough not to be drowned by those flocking to do their their cosmic Führer's bloody bidding. (No, this is in no way intended as a nazi reference - just as a fancy word for a beloved dictator)

Let us look at another example. Something a little less controversial than gay kids or suicide bombers, perhaps. Vast numbers of people find it various degrees of disturbing, or even appalling, that the Pope will not use his position as the head of the Catholic church to advocate the use of condoms in countries not far short of dying out of HIV/AIDS. Not only that, but to the best of my admittedly out-dated knowledge, he takes an active stance against. Isn't the relative silence of what..? Over one billion Catholics worldwide even more disturbing than one old man's unwillingness to catch up with the times?

I doubt it would even take a numerical majority of Catholics to get Vatican to change its policy. Quarter of a billion people taking an active interest in what their own bloody church is about would likely get pretty far. So yes, I think most do behave in the way described in my original post, if not in the specific examples provided therein. The human capacity not to give a shit... I value it greatly, but when you identify yourself as a part of a group and then do nothing but bolster numbers in polls... Well, if you ask me, you are doing it wrong. Politicians decide to go against the flow and there are protests and rallies and people chaining themselves up to heavy machinery and front-page-news both within the country and abroad. Some dude in a funny hat decides that abortion is evil, however, and... Eh, well, it's God. What can you do? And the few voices of reason have neither numbers nor the staying power to make a considerable impact.

I'll yield right here, I think, before I add more confusion to my pursuit of a clear message.

[Insoluble]

Do you think that all believers behave in the manner portrayed in your examples?

I thought it a kinda spectrum disorder. 

[Crow]

Do you not think what you have described isn't just a unique trait of the religious but the species as a whole. We are inherently selfish, we cooperate when needed because it is beneficial even if just to postpone boredom. This selfishness breeds laziness and/or ignorance. There are those who buck this trend in part but are far from exempt.

Lets take the environment. We know there are measures that everyone individually can take to help maintain a better living environment, however very few people are prepared to adjust their lifestyle because they already like what they have and are unwilling to see how much better the alternative could be. The changes take effort as well as continued determination.

Why are those who are native speakers of a popular language unlikely to learn another? Because the benefits are marginal unless it is a career path, they have a fascination of languages or spend time in countries where their language isn't going to be accommodated. Why do people who aren't naive speakers of a popular language likely to learn at least one? Because it is highly beneficial.

How does a person react when a social norm they engage with is challenged, usually negatively. Often the older they are the more staunch their position as it is deeply ingrained in memory. Lets take the position of Icarus in the Reason To Be Grumpy Thread on mechanics as an example. He is knowledgeable about the subject and well experienced but doesn't like the way things have gone. Now is that distaste because he doesn't like the mechanical work done? Nope. Is it because the skill set required has changed? Yes and he isn't in the loop he once was. For many if it isn't broke don't change it, because the new additions require additional effort and this feeds back into their own selfishness of wanting things easier or how they were, but perhaps if they learn the new tool sets they would find it more enjoyable than they once did.

[Asmodean]

Do you not think what you have described isn't just a unique trait of the religious but the species as a whole. We are inherently selfish, we cooperate when needed because it is beneficial even if just to postpone boredom. This selfishness breeds laziness and/or ignorance. There are those who buck this trend in part but are far from exempt.

Yes, I think I answered this point well enough in my previous post. To summarize, no, of course it's not unique to religion. And it's neither selfishness nor laziness that I find distasteful, rather the inclanation of some people to identify with a group while being silent bystanders at best. Either step up or step out, is what I say. My beef is, in other words, not at all with the unaffiliated slob, but with someone who identifies with a movement or even actively joins it, but who does nothing within it other than bolster the poll statistics. Religions are just where this trend is continually and strikingly obvious. Or, maybe I should say Christianity and Islam are, but that may just be a geographically generated perspective.

Lets take the environment. We know there are measures that everyone individually can take to help maintain a better living environment, however very few people are prepared to adjust their lifestyle because they already like what they have and are unwilling to see how much better the alternative could be. The changes take effort as well as continued determination.

Yes, and if you are one of those people who identifies himself as "green", "eco-friendly" or some other denomination of environmentalist and then you stand by in silence while your neighbor burns old tyres with diesel, then you are kind of not doing it right, now are you? On the other hand, if you are that neighbor and you don't really care about the environment and don't pretend to... Well, good for you. I, for one, do not expect nor, for that matter, even want you to change your ways unless society as a whole demands it strongly enough - and maybe not even then.

Why are those who are native speakers of a popular language unlikely to learn another? Because the benefits are marginal unless it is a career path, they have a fascination of languages or spend time in countries where their language isn't going to be accommodated. Why do people who aren't naive speakers of a popular language likely to learn at least one? Because it is highly beneficial.

How does a person react when a social norm they engage with is challenged, usually negatively. Often the older they are the more staunch their position as it is deeply ingrained in memory. Lets take the position of Icarus in the Reason To Be Grumpy Thread on mechanics as an example. He is knowledgeable about the subject and well experienced but doesn't like the way things have gone. Now is that distaste because he doesn't like the mechanical work done? Nope. Is it because the skill set required has changed? Yes and he isn't in the loop he once was. For many if it isn't broke don't change it, because the new additions require additional effort and this feeds back into their own selfishness of wanting things easier or how they were, but perhaps if they learn the new tool sets they would find it more enjoyable than they once did.

An excellent point, of course, if rather beside the one I've been trying to make. I agree. People will normally prefer the percieved path of least resistance. That, however, is not where my "problem" lies.

[Insoluble]

How does a person react when a social norm they engage with is challenged, usually negatively. Often the older they are the more staunch their position as it is deeply ingrained in memory. Lets take the position of Icarus in the Reason To Be Grumpy Thread on mechanics as an example.

I don't get this, yes, I suffered a grievous bump to my spectrum at an early age so I may be disordered.  Conflating social norms and technical stuff, surely there's a rule against that.

I'm not going to launch into an attack on the young and their susceptibility to the mesmerising effect of the shiny new, my glass is empty.

[Crow]

I don't get this, yes, I suffered a grievous bump to my spectrum at an early age so I may be disordered.  Conflating social norms and technical stuff, surely there's a rule against that.

I'm not going to launch into an attack on the young and their susceptibility to the mesmerising effect of the shiny new, my glass is empty.

The young often don't have the knowledge of how things were and often is the first time they are doing things, there is also the arrogance of youth. The youth also have the benefit of reduced cynicism which

There is always a point in a persons life when they say oh fuck it. In business it often happens when the inevitable rise of position and the ability to par it off to others becomes a requirement to maintain functionality, or in general stuff happens and people take breaks then when things slow they get to engage in enjoyments only for it to have changed to such an extent it is almost unrecognisable. People at an older age can often function well without these newfangled contraptions just like they have done for many years and their selfishness at wanting an easy life (understandably so) often prevents them from learning the new skill sets, the young don't have the luxury of not engaging as these are the standards they are going to have to learn so they can earn a living or engage with others to not learn them would be placing them at a disadvantage.

[Insoluble]

I don't get this, yes, I suffered a grievous bump to my spectrum at an early age so I may be disordered.  Conflating social norms and technical stuff, surely there's a rule against that.

I'm not going to launch into an attack on the young and their susceptibility to the mesmerising effect of the shiny new, my glass is empty.

The young often don't have the knowledge of how things were and often is the first time they are doing things, there is also the arrogance of youth. The youth also have the benefit of reduced cynicism which

There is always a point in a persons life when they say oh fuck it. In business it often happens when the inevitable rise of position and the ability to par it off to others becomes a requirement to maintain functionality, or in general stuff happens and people take breaks then when things slow they get to engage in enjoyments only for it to have changed to such an extent it is almost unrecognisable. People at an older age can often function well without these newfangled contraptions just like they have done for many years and their selfishness at wanting an easy life (understandably so) often prevents them from learning the new skill sets, the young don't have the luxury of not engaging as these are the standards they are going to have to learn so they can earn a living or engage with others to not learn them would be placing them at a disadvantage.

You're very good at this Mental Diarrhoea stuff, do you think it a common characteristic of others of the late young or early middle age cohort?

[Crow]

You're very good at this Mental Diarrhoea stuff, do you think it a common characteristic of others of the late young or early middle age cohort?

Nope rather a characteristic found in those who are actively staving off boredom.

[Asmodean]

*sigh* Yes, that. I, for one, am still after-bored what with all the holiday crap. 

[Crow]

You're very good at this Mental Diarrhoea stuff, do you think it a common characteristic of others of the late young or early middle age cohort?

I'm curious, what age period would you consider to be the late young or early middle age?

[Insoluble]

You're very good at this Mental Diarrhoea stuff, do you think it a common characteristic of others of the late young or early middle age cohort?

I'm curious, what age period would you consider to be the late young or early middle age?

It varies depending on what suits my purpose.