Entry 2233, on 2022-08-29 at 22:09:45 (Rating 4, Politics)
My opposition to religion is well documented in this blog, but so is my opposition to a lot of other things, mostly related to political correctness and other modern political trends. What is the connection here? Well, I say many modern belief systems have a lot in common with religion, and might be an inevitable outcome when "real" religion becomes both less acceptable to the "power elite" and less less supported by others.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with religion as such, especially when it tries to provide social support to its members, do charitable work, and create an environment where elements of spirituality can be explored.
And I think there's also nothing wrong with the underlying ideas of political correctness when it tries to prevent oppression of minority groups, improve fairness and equity, and allow everyone to participate more equally in society.
But there are two problems with both of these worldviews: first, neither is fact based, because they both have a set of beliefs which are rarely questioned or revised; and second, neither really knows when to stop, because they reach a goal and then just continue on with more and more unreasonable demands.
I think most people need a framework to base their lives on, or a common philosophy allowing them to identify as a member of a group, or some narrative they can use to help them understand the world, and traditional religions provided all of these. But now that religion is dying (at least in the Western world) people need other ways to achieve these goals. So why not create a new type of religion? And that, in many ways, is what feminism, environmentalism, support for the trans community, climate change, and others are all about.
Note that I am not saying that any of these new "religions" are wrong, or unnecessary. I'm just saying that the majority of people included in these groups get involved for irrational reasons, or take the basic ideals too far, or are members just so that they can virtue signal their supposed moral superiority. In other words, they get involved for bad reasons, even when the raison d'etre for the group's existence is good.
Let's look at one modern "religion" which I particularly object to: Black Lives Matter.
First, note that it has a catchy name which few people could disagree with. Of course, black lives matter, just like lives of every culture, nationality, and race matter. But note that saying that is seen as a modern form of blasphemy. If I say "all lives matter" I will be attacked as if I had said black lives don't matter.
It's like their holy catchphrase has been used against them, and they don't like it. Sort of like saying "Sure, Jesus saves, but so does Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, etc."
So BLM might be seen as a reaction to excessive police violence, but there is a lot of evidence showing that excessive violence doesn't really exist, or if it does, it applies to all races fairly equally. Of course, BLM must deny this or the reason for their existence becomes irrelevant. It's a bit like science showing Creation isn't true but fundamentalist Christians rejecting this because it makes what they want to believe less legitimate.
Like I said, it is very much like blasphemy. When Giordano Bruno supported the sun-centered, Copernican model of the Solar System he was burned at the stake, because the Catholic Church has already decided what it wanted to believe and the facts just got in the way of that. To be fair, the modern form of torture favoured by the zealots isn't quite as extreme as that, but being "cancelled" is the current equivalent.
What about ideas which have outlived their usefulness? Well, to some extent I would put feminism in that category. Women have equal rights in every area of modern life, and in some they have significant advantages. For example, men do most of the really dirty and dangerous jobs, they participate less in tertiary education, they die earlier, they are jailed far more often, they commit suicide more often, and are the victims of far more accidents. Where is the movement trying to redress this imbalance? It basically doesn't exist, yet feminists just demand more and more.
Before the scientific revolution, religion had a place explaining how the world worked, but as we discovered the real facts religion became less important. But many religious people cannot accept that continue to insist that old myths have some sort of factual basis. Like the feminists, it's time to move on.
I think this demonstrates that my two objections to religions (both traditional and what I claim as the modern equivalents) are real. Religion and modern political activist groups are both based on what seemed to be true when they were first created, but in reality are primarily about false perceptions and myths. And they both have achieved a lot but are still never satisfied, even when they seem to have fulfilled their initial goals.
Also, both are primarily about collectivist ideals. A true individualist, free thinker would never get involved with either because they are both very much about being told what to think and believe, rather than figuring it out for yourself. Libertarians don't tend to be either religious or to participate much with social activism groups.
I see myself as a libertarian to some extent, and even I can see the appeal of belonging to a group where everyone agrees and knows what is expected of them in terms of beliefs, but at the same time I value my independence too much to follow the temptation of joining a group like those I have been describing.
There is another element of this I should mention here too. It is that many people in these groups (of both types) are very hypocritical.
Is there anything more sickening than to see world leaders taking their private jets to an event where they lecture the rest of us on how we should be reducing our carbon emissions? And can you see the parallels with religions which preach that we should be helping the poor while the leaders live in luxury? Or where we see priests preaching about protecting children while thay abuse them? Hypocrisy isn't universal in these situations, but it is common.
Finally, there is the role of fear and hysteria. I have no doubt that many young people today live in fear of the world ending thanks to climate change. We are told there is a "climate emergency" (another convenient catchphrase) and that this is an existential crisis. Actually no, this is not an emergency, and there is nothing existential about it.
Climate change is a problem, but one which can be managed as long as we forget about the doctrinal material distributed by the "high priests" (I'm committed to this comparison of religion and political activism) of climate change and the hysteria conveyed by the charismatic purveyors of their ideas, like Greta Thunberg (yeah, I know she's an idiot, but she is charismatic to many people).
So maybe at this point I have shown you that whatever faults traditional religions might have, that the modern substitutes for them might be even worse.
It would be so much easier if people stopped looking for a new religion. If they really need one, join a moderate, traditional religion with positive ideals (Buddhism maybe?), but don't create a new political religion which is just as oppressive and out of touch as any traditional one was.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE