Theme: Science

THE TRUTH IS A HARSH RELIGION

–“for a “scientist,” you have an awfully 7th-grade level of religious understanding. just a quick scroll through your feed shows a total lack of discernment when it even comes to the most basic differences between monotheistic faiths, as if you can just say “muh abrahamism” and that somehow means anything as an umbrella term. don’t you think that, if you’re going to claim to be empirical and objective, you should at least take the time to understand what you’re talking about?”—Michael Witcoff

(As if my campaign against abrahamic sophism is limited to the old world religions of judaism, christianity, and islam – and the new world religions of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and anti-europeanism – as much as it is against the causes of demand for falsehoods, and our ability to provide an alternative due to lack of understanding and costs.)

That isnt a criticism. it’s an excuse. religion consists of what existed before 7th grade education, and declines now that we have that education. There is a reason religiosity deceases with intelligence and knowledge. There is a reason religiosity increases with declines in intelligence. There is a reason religiosity increases with diversity and decreases with homogeneity. In other words, religion as you understand it, is symptomatic of ‘the bad’.

Yet, there is a reason why we have demand for personal, interpersonal, civic, and political rituals and feasts. there are many ways of supplying that demand. That’s the evidence from around the world and throughout history.

The fact that one can scientifically articulate the causes of tht demand and the range of methods of supplying it is no more mysterious than the study of any other human behavior.

Sure, it was the hard problem of social science. But that was only because of the poor framing of the work in understanding it. Einstein, Menger and Darwin were revolutionary because of their understanding that the problem was framing. Once you understand the commonality between their discoveries was framing (and once you understand my work for that matter) it is rather easy to see that the problem of religion as behavioral therapy is rather obvious. And therefore the satisfaction of demand for that problem by more constructive means, and eliminating the need for therapy by eliminating its causes: alienation.

Patients easily become addicted to their therapists. So your ‘criticism’ that I should ‘understand’ (sympathize) is nothing more than the appeal of the gambler, drunk or addict, for sympathy with the experience of gambling, drunkenness or addiction.

I want to and others want to find a form of MEDICATION that is not harmful to the host.