Religion – Part III of VI
Using Belief to Control
In writing this series on religion, I feel it’s important to note I do not view religions in general as inherently bad. I criticize aspects of its history and believe its relevancy in modern cultures, for the most part, has passed, but I remain respectful of those who continue to incorporate religious belief and ritual into their daily lives. As long as those same believers maintain a mutual respect for those of us who don’t espouse religious tenets, I’m good with most belief systems another person might hold as sacred.
And so, as offered in Part II, during the initial phases of the development of religious belief, the combination of curiosity and consciousness drove early humans to consider such things as life after death, the meaning of celestial objects, and reasons surrounding the forces of nature. Most of their questions were answered as best they could through a combination of imagination and an unsubstantiated grasp of cause and effect. There was a naïve purity about this understanding. Through the process of developing supernatural answers, our ancestors gathered as much information as they could about themselves and their environments using the limited resources at hand.
A general consensus among anthropologists suggests that early humans began to develop rudimentary language 135,000 years ago (or so). This was around the same time as Homo sapiens spread across the African continent, migrating outward from the central plains and forests. There is less agreement by experts as to when we began to leave the African continent though most evidence suggests that tribes initially headed east towards southern Asia around 60,000 years ago prior to moving into Europe and northern Asia. Archeological material demonstrates that by 14,000 years ago, people had settled on every continent except Antarctica. In the great scheme of evolutionary history, this all took place in a tiny sliver of time.
With each relocation by our nomadic ancestors, new environments were encountered and beliefs adapted to meet new challenges and answer new questions. As a wide variety of religious rituals became integrated into cultures throughout the world, there were individuals who understood the potential power a shaman, priest, guru, oracle, or other perceived holy person could hold over the general population. Certainly not all leaders took advantage of this potential power. Yet others did find ways of using the local ethnocentric belief system as a cudgel. The direction taken by the emissaries of tribal culture was dependent on leadership personalities which included those who leaned towards altruism and those who would be considered egocentric, as noted in Edward O. Wilson's book, The Social Conquest of Earth. Many of the narcissists who did seek control over others understood the power of faith in this context.
A complete grasp of how individual personalities impacted daily life 70,000 years ago is next to impossible. Fortunately for researchers delving into ancient human behavioral patterns, our interactions have remained relatively consistent over the past few centuries, so we can make educated assumptions about how our ancestors built similar societal structures.
As mentioned, manipulation and subjugation of the faithful by religious leadership was not the case in all sects. But elements of human nature in the form of a narcissistic desire to control others would often interfere, creating a highly dysfunctional hierarchy where those in charge would use faith as a way of generating an authoritarian regime. Over the centuries there have been hundreds of examples of this kind of abuse, from the wide ranging absolute authority of Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century, while in more contemporary times there were groups such as the People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ, founded by Jim Jones in the 1970s. Questioning the leaders of any of these factions was usually met with extremely harsh public humiliation or worse, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear as one of the main weapons against any dissent, (Kool-Aid anyone?).
This power was wielded based mostly on a combination of promised reward for good behavior in conjunction with threats of eternal damnation in a burning hell for challenging authority. Plus the prospect of being expelled from the tribe can be a key motivational factor in blindly follow directives. Fear of exclusion is often a major contributor to ignoring a rational thought process since humans are, at heart, social animals and inclusion in the tribe is of critical importance. The group mindset, as dictated by a charismatic leader, is an extremely powerful tool in controlling the emotions and thoughts of a large number of people.
In many instances, strict behavioral codes were decreed by whatever entity was in charge and the punishment for disobedience was banishment, torture, imprisonment, or death. This brings to mind the 1887 quote from Lord John Dalberg-Acton suggesting that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” especially when considering the hold some had (and continue to have) over large groups of the faithful. In this context it is easy to equate aspects of religious fanaticism with the proliferation of cults. And even when a cult does not have an obvious affiliation with a defined religious institution, there are religious overtones embedded in all cults. Leaders position themselves as god-like icons where their decrees are akin to scripture within the group.
In today’s world cultures we continue to find dozens of examples of use of religion as a stranglehold over both small and large groups. The Taliban interprets Sharia law, ostensibly derived from the Quran, to maintain a level of absolute power over much of the population of Afghanistan, depriving women of any rights whatsoever and completely restricting free speech for everyone. Many Islamic scholars will suggest this is a very skewed perspective of Islam. A similar dominance can be found in other countries, especially in places like Iran where the Ayatollah (the spiritual leader) can make up any decree that fits the current political climate.
A sect of Buddhist monks in Myanmar carry automatic weapons and are known to have massacred Muslims out of hatred for any person believing something other than their own take on Buddhism. This seems incredibly antithetical to what we assume to know about the seemingly peaceful tenets of Buddhism. The Haredi (the ultra-orthodox members of Judaism) have a tremendous sway over how the political system works in Israel, where several members of this group call for the extermination of all Palestinians. Again, as far as I can know, this mindset is the exact opposite of how many Jews view the parables of justice and tolerance as set forth in the Torah.
And here in the United States there are hundreds of thousands of church members associated with factions of so-called Christianity who call for all non-Christians to be purged from this country, despite the clear definition of freedom of speech and religion as described in our Constitution. Not to mention the completely foreign notion of most of these people with regard to the teachings of tolerance and love their savior, Jesus Christ, expresses in the Bible. Unfortunately, to touch on the cult of the current leader of the U.S. and his faux religiosity would add another five pages to this essay, so no, not today.
Ultimately, for many leaders who are steeped in fringe religious dogma, the basic teachings of their root religions are ignored in order to utilize those same teachings with an intent to subjugate the populations of the countries where they hold power. By picking and choosing what passages these people feel is the most useful in keeping the citizenry in check, they can justify any behavior.
[Next week, Part IV will be a discussion of the most heinous of all religions: Worship at the Altar of Unfathomable Wealth].
Allow me to be the first to jump into a deeper end of the pool. Religion is an enduring interest for me as you know. As a recovering Christian fundamentalist habits of thought, terminology as well a certain grammar will always be an aspect of my self-understanding. In my case a discussion such as you are hosting on your blog is equivalent to an AA meeting for me. Your words provoke an awareness of my journey, of how far I have come.
I agree that the “heirloom” religions, those officially recognized appear to be more and more irrelevant to our way of life. At least in our society, and from what I am told in Europe too. Official religion changes very slowly, in part because congregations will not tolerate “new” ideas, possibilities unfamiliar, unorthodox. Believers want to hear the old stories told in the same old ways. Full stop. Minds made up: god never changes. Deviate and you’ll need to move on.
That said, I come back over and over to the bedrock of our vulnerability. We are inherently psychologically fragile, thriving to the extent that we receive love and solicitude early on. As it stands our parents often are unable to supply the elements of care that a child requires, and so the damage is perpetuated. We continue to quest for as much care, as we need to become an existentially whole adult. Some do “make it home” later in life, by dint of good fortune receiving needed resources. Homer’s story of Odysseus comes to mind. But as you note there are many ways this hunger, this deficit can go wrong. Power hungry politicos, or religious “leaders” often hijack and take advantage of human vulnerability. That said to be human is to acknowledge one’s finitude, how fragile and contingent one’s life really is. Humans are persistently religious in the sense of the root meaning of the word, that is, a need to bind together the disparate fragments of one’s life.
You alluded to the religious dysfunction that is currently on display sometimes daily in our country. The evangelicals have decided that “the kingdom” after all is “of this world”. Pay no attention to what Jesus actually said, as far as we know. Continue to give lip service to the after-life, while pressing ahead here and now to consolidate church and state… A level of bare-faced cruelty is somehow rationalized.
Perhaps this should come as no surprise. The crux of the ancient religions was power, the Mojo to influence the gods to send rain, or to curse one’s enemies, or to comp you a pass to heaven. In a capitalist society such as we have, money is fungible power. The close association with wealth, and religio-political Mojo is but an extension of an old logic. Wealth and influence and religion meld into a mix.
To conclude, I was reminded of the streaming series The Righteous Gemstones. Perhaps you’ve viewed some of this satire on American Evangelicalism starring John Goodman? The performance is Oscar level as far as I am concerned. The setting of this televangelist, mega-church saga is Florida as you might imagine. You can find trailers for the available seasons on Youtube
Jerry – As always, thank you for your invaluable insights. You mention that, “Believers want to hear the old stories told in the same old ways.” There is safety in the familiar. People can count on the consistency both in their daily lives in the religious rituals that they practice each week. Especially when one is thrown off balance by an unexpected event such as an illness, a job loss, an accident, or even a death. a god of some sort will give them answers to their questions and remind them that if they pray enough or follow the rules, they will remain a member of the tribe, regardless of the circumstances.
What I keep coming back to is that I wish life were simpler, though perhaps that’s not the correct word. I firmly believe we live in a What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWIG) world. Yes, of course there are mysteries to solve and unknowns that we run into everyday, but when we embrace the pragmatic, we know there are answers “out there” that do not include faith in a fictitious being. So maybe what I mean is that I wish life were kinder and more straightforward. But what I discover, over and over and over again, is that the reality is not that kinder and more straightforward world. It has elements of that, especially when we seek it out. But for the most part it is a cruel world. One where people suffer and die needlessly every single day. Where madmen deport innocent people back to places where they will be tortured, or they drop bombs on those who are just doing what they can to survive. All for the sake of greed and ego. How does that fit with faith? How does religious dogma explain this incredibly egregious behavior other than to tell me it’s God’s will or some such nonsense. I just don’t understand.
Your summation paragraph nicely describes “the absurd” which demands maturity, to reach a point in one’s journey of simply giving up on understanding the wildness, the incongruity of much of “life” particularly the human element. Humans are creatures that can go appallingly wrong. Humans have the ability at present to ‘fuck up’ the entire planet, and a few of us are obliging forthwith.
Religion understood and appropriated in a healthy way is no zone of safety. To be kind, to develop empathy is risky business. The insistence upon what one is accustomed to is another recipe for orthodoxy, ossified, and useless religion. There’s a robust market of those who will pay to be told lies, – that Jesus physically will return, that faith is a policy with a dividend of resurrection. All nonsense, convenient lies that simply adds to the chaos and cruelty that engulfs bystanders…
Good reading Tobin. Balanced against the negative are examples of good of generosity and tolerance. How does one teach morality ethics humane behaviors in a totally secular world? A question non believers struggle with I think
Jody, thank you for your thoughts and perspective. I must admit that I’m a bit mystified by your words. In some ways, since I do not have a religious bone in my body, there is an implication that I must be immoral, unethical, and inhumane because I don’t believe in some kind of deity or omniscient being who will punish me if I don’t behave. I think I have a very strong moral compass based on what I personally believe; the goal of the betterment of human condition, regardless of what some people think might exist after death. I live here, in the present moment, in this life and I am doing everything I can to leave the world a better place than when I arrived. But I’m failing, miserably. And yet, at 75 years of age, I’m still trying. If nothing else, that’s my lesson to those who follow. That’s the lesson this secular non believer has been attempting to teach others. But very few really want to listen. So, to answer your final words, no, I do not struggle with the concept that morality, ethics, and humane behavior can be taught by someone like me.
Hello Again Jody – I want to begin with an apology for the overly defensive reaction to your reply. I had just read a piece titled, “Proof That All Atheist are Amoral” so this subject was still circulating in my brain.
When a person who goes to church once a week, prays to his/her god or takes a holy sacrament, but then comes home and beats the crap out of his/her children, are they taking to heart the moral, ethical, or humane lessons of their religion? The lessons of morality, ethics, and humanity are not ones that are taught in Sunday school or heard from the pulpit, they are lessons taught by a parent through example. Of course there are biblical parables (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you) that espouse beneficial traits and can be used to pass along the better side of humanity, but it comes down to how a child is raised. And as mentioned, it’s not necessarily about verbal dictates, but is more likely to be based on the behavior of the person raising that child.
If someone looks to religious texts for the underpinning of their moral compass, texts that preach fear of an omniscient being that could either send you to hell or offer a promise of ever lasting life, then they have lost the right (at least in my opinion) to give their child that personal guidance that is crucial for a better world.
Again, from my perspective the instilling of a code of good behavior (and I realize the term “good” has a very subjective definition) has to do with with respect, not just for each other, but for nature, for our environment. These are definitely aspects of being a member of the human race that can be taught without a moral imperative coming from a supernatural being. In fact I believe it’s more impactful to have the sense of connection to nature emanate from a personal inner, non-theistic source. Anyway, I hope all of this makes sense.
“Worship at the Altar of Unfathomable Wealth,” so, are you for or against? Thinking about the Church of Tobin here.
It would appear that the Kool-Aid, inquisitions, golden candle-sticks, etc. do not follow naturally from the “pure” origins of explaining natural phenomena cited in Part #1. [As I understand it, Kool-Aid went to the true believers, not as a punishment?] Hopelessly convoluted with human tendency towards hierarchy.
When is Jerry going to take us to Paris Cafe again?
Well, Michael, an interesting post reply. First off, you will have to wait until next Wednesday to find out the answer to query #1 (sorry). I will say that every time you use the term, “Church of Tobin” I do feel a bit nauseous, but that is not meant to dissuade you from saying whatever you like. I don’t edit the content of readers’ replies.
The cyanide laced drink, from what I remember, was not voluntarily consumed by all (which, BTW, was not Kool-Aid, but a cheaper brand called Flavr-Aid as I was told yesterday) . Many of the members were forced to swallow the liquid by men armed with automatic weapons despite a desire to stay alive. Some were even shot because they would not drink.
People are indeed fucked up.