Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

I dunno if I NEED the concept of a god. I do know that the concept of a god is useful to me – in a practical sense. And I know why that is so. But given that I know I am not exactly normal, or average, I don’t expect other people to either deny the utility of such a thing, or at least, to deny it to others. Nor do I expect that some portion of the population finds the concept of a god more than useful, but necessary. I only know that there is a difference between psychological utility to the individual, and the value of reinforcement in such shared utility between individuals, versus the projection of that utility as existential and useful between individuals who do not share that utility. And that all comforting fictions and fictionalisms that are merely useful devices are not sufficient, useful, or necessary for the organization of and resolution of differences between, individuals who neither need, nor can, make use of or even entertain those fictions and fictionalisms. We do not need systems of weights and measures, whether of physical things, verbal things, imaginary things, or emotional things because we agree on the sense, perception, value, and promise of those things. We need them because we not only don’t agree, but because we don’t equally sense, perceive, value, and predict the utility of such things in matters of cooperation, exchange, and conflict. As such, no individual’s perception and valuation hold meaning except as criteria for his or her choice of voluntary cooperation and exchange. Despite that such vanity, held by each individual, that his or her perception and valuation hold meaning, and that such meaning should and could be projected upon others with any degree of utility or reliability – instead of antagonism. And if there is a divine somewhere of some nature, then surely that vanity would be a sin of arrogance, pride, and ignorance.

I dunno if I NEED the concept of a god. I do know that the concept of a god is useful to me – in a practical sense. And I know why that is so. But given that I know I am not exactly normal, or average, I don’t expect other people either deny the utility of such a thing, at least, deny it to others. Nor do I expect that some portion of the population finds the concept of a god more than useful, but necessary. I only know that there is a difference between psychological utility to the individual, and the value of reinforcement in such shared utility between individuals, versus the projection of that utility as existential and useful between individuals who do not share that utility. And that all comforting fictions and fictionalisms that are merely useful devices are not sufficient, useful, or necessary for the organization of and resolution of differences between, individuals who neither need, nor can, make use of or even entertain those fictions and fictionalisms. We do not need systems of weights and measures, whether of physical things, verbal things, imaginary things, or emotional things because we agree on the sense, perception, value, and promise of those things. We need them because we not only don’t agree, but because we don’t sense, percieve, value, and predict the utility of such things in matters of cooperation, exchange, and conflict. As such no individual’s perception and valuation hold meaning except as criteria for voluntary cooperation and exchange. Despite this vanity by each individual that his or her perception and valuation hold meaning, that such meaning should and could be projected upon others with any degree of utility or reliability. And if there is a divine somewhere of some nature, then surely that vanity would be a sin of arrogance, pride, and ignorance.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOSITY
Religion philosophy or knowledge are necessary for the production of mindfulness as the means of suppression of neuroticism, in proportion to one’s self image, status, and success in life. Religions evolved during the age of transformation because of the restoration of trade after the bronze age collapse and the greek introduction of the technology of money debt and credit.
Science: there are only a few requirements for religiosity and they are not a compliment:
(a) empathic instead of systemic sex differences in cognition – with empathic bias amplifying neuroticism.
(b) neuroticism – especially in women.
(c) feminine bias in cognition for the same reason.
(d) Intelligence – allowing the application of systematizing -with intelligence mediating the need for fictitious evasions of reality, and greater ability to cooperate with others.
(e) Indoctrination – with lower intelligence, more superstitions, less educated, less advanced polities more dependent upon sedation by religious superstition.
(f) in a european population that means about 20% of people will need some sort of social and psychological sedation if we do not provide an institutional means of training people into mindfulness. In an east asian population it’s as little as 10 percent. In a south eurasian population from north of africa to east of india with average IQs down in the low 80s, it’s necessary for two thirds. In africa we don’t know yet but statistically it appears closer to ninety percent.
(g) Neotenic evolution suppressed impulsivity and aggression in exchange for agency and moderation. That’s the primary difference between the races and the civilizations that evolved to support cooperation between them.
Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @Archaic3one @theyakadude