Religion vs. law
Feb. 15th, 2008 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueI'd like to put forward a theory.
For a very long time, the human race has been religious. Regardless on your viewpoint of your religion, it's undeniable, that for the last few thousand years, there's been some form of belief in the supernatural.
One of the key elements of religion, is that of aspiring to be better than you are. If you do certain things during your life, and you aspire to live well, then there will be a reward, often a reward after death. OR indeed, punishment if you're bad.
This kind of counterbalances against the legal system - the religious aspect tells you what you should do, and offers the carrot. The legal system tells you what you shouldn't do, and offers the stick. There's also a bit of overlap in the sticks, too, where religion also declares some stuff as bad, and that you'll suffer if you do it. Conveniently, this leaves room for the things that are hard to prove in a court of law.
But the thing is, the people I know don't tend to be of criminal inclination. This is not because they are bothered about getting caught, and the consequences thereof. They do not do certain things, because they believe they are wrong. Of course, similarly there's 'approximately illegal' things, that I've seen done, because whilst they're illegal, they're also not thought to be 'wrong' in turn. Things like speeding, down an empty, clear straight road, for example, might be a fairly common example, of illegal, but (often) accepted.
So I'd like to put forth the notion, that mankind is not ready for atheism. There are many wise people out there, who have considered the notion, and reached a personal conclusion. However similarly, there are also those who _haven't_ really considered it, they've just ... well, gone along with whatever.
There was a time, not so very long ago, that what you did on a sunday, was go to church. It was the accepted thing to do. As was being seen to follow the intent of Christianity. It didn't always work, but... well, actually, there are many worse ways to live your life, than by following the Ten Commandments.
But I digress. Religion, if believed, tends to lead towards the spiritual, to the aspiration of being greater than we are. The dream of transcendance, that leads to living a better life. If paid lipservice to... well, actually, if someone's pretending to be good god fearing folk, then that's almost as good.
This is not to say that religion cannot be perverted. It has been, many times over the centuaries. Wars have been fought over differences in interpretation. Crusades have been started, because slaughtering the infidel was considered holy. And more recently, we have the Islamic fundamentalist perversions of the faith, leading to suicide bombing and terrorism.
There will always be people who walk willingly into evil. There will always be those who can be lead astray. This is why we have the safety net of law - law is essentially laying down the consequences of certain actions, for those who are not deterred by the general consensus of 'it being wrong'. This does actually tend to correlate quite highly with the prevalent religion - how could it be otherwise, when you have a society believing, or pretending to believe in certain key tenets as to how to lead their life.
It's this, I think, that might be the problem we are starting to see emerging in society today. I'd make the assertion that 'religion' is diminished, and almost negated in modern society. Our new 'religion' is the celebs, and the media. It's the glitz of hollywood, and the iconisation of stars.
But this religion is flawed - it has no structure to good and bad. It doesn't lead the 'average citizen' into aspirations which are good for society. At the end of the day, ruthlessness, malice, and corruption are VERY powerful. If one is prepared to apply them sufficiently, to be prepared to take advantage of every opportunity, no matter the cost to others, then ... well, would it suprise you to find that many of our top 'movers and shakers' in politics and industry are borderline psychopathic?
The drive to power, the drive to succeed, the drive to press onwards, and accept the consequential harm to others, is a very valid and powerful survival trait.
This can only really be tempered, by the collective assertion of 'what is good'. Religion serves as a very useful mechanism to this end. There's probably others, but at the very least, if society as a whole, condemns the 'immoral' then one is essentially forced into that morality, and conformity, by one's very drive to excel.
Different religions have different aspirations. I'd probably go as far as saying that all our current relgions have been over interpreted. Again, they've had bits hacked in, and elements read, to serve the purposes of the corrupt. Their original meaning distorted, to a short term advantage.
Perhaps it's a factor that's needed. But perhaps we don't actually need a priesthood to tell us what The Word of God actually is. I mean, if you got rid of most of the bible, and made the holy book the ten commandments, and a bit of exposition of the intent, I daresay a lot of the evil carried out in the name of christianity wouldn't have been pulled off so easily. It's a bit hard to say 'I have interpreted this holy work, and actually, it says it's ok to go and kill all those funny looking people in Jerusalem' when you've only got 10 lines to 'interpret' and one of them is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.
Perhaps we should be looking to review, and re-instill beliefs in society. Something nice and simple, and less prone to misintepretation, by evil men. But the effect of religion as a whole, on the growth of our society, I think overall has been a positive one.
Mankind needs the myth. It needs the hope of eternal reward, for a life well lead. The 'average working man' needs his guidance, for how he should live - he's not interested in considering religion, or not, he just wants to conform with a society. Society itself should be supplying the moral constraints of what is acceptable and what is not, and at the moment it is failing.
This myth is the balance, for the fact that is law. This myth is what manages the expectations, and leads the aspirations of the 'average man'. It's what manages the populace, and focusess their intent and objectives. It outlines what is meant, by a good life, well lead. It is used to manage the natural tendency to ruthlessness, to kill, maim and brutalise one's way to glory, by supplying a counterpoint, and a hard to contradict counter argument, for "why should I not take what I can?".
One might even call it myth management.
For a very long time, the human race has been religious. Regardless on your viewpoint of your religion, it's undeniable, that for the last few thousand years, there's been some form of belief in the supernatural.
One of the key elements of religion, is that of aspiring to be better than you are. If you do certain things during your life, and you aspire to live well, then there will be a reward, often a reward after death. OR indeed, punishment if you're bad.
This kind of counterbalances against the legal system - the religious aspect tells you what you should do, and offers the carrot. The legal system tells you what you shouldn't do, and offers the stick. There's also a bit of overlap in the sticks, too, where religion also declares some stuff as bad, and that you'll suffer if you do it. Conveniently, this leaves room for the things that are hard to prove in a court of law.
But the thing is, the people I know don't tend to be of criminal inclination. This is not because they are bothered about getting caught, and the consequences thereof. They do not do certain things, because they believe they are wrong. Of course, similarly there's 'approximately illegal' things, that I've seen done, because whilst they're illegal, they're also not thought to be 'wrong' in turn. Things like speeding, down an empty, clear straight road, for example, might be a fairly common example, of illegal, but (often) accepted.
So I'd like to put forth the notion, that mankind is not ready for atheism. There are many wise people out there, who have considered the notion, and reached a personal conclusion. However similarly, there are also those who _haven't_ really considered it, they've just ... well, gone along with whatever.
There was a time, not so very long ago, that what you did on a sunday, was go to church. It was the accepted thing to do. As was being seen to follow the intent of Christianity. It didn't always work, but... well, actually, there are many worse ways to live your life, than by following the Ten Commandments.
But I digress. Religion, if believed, tends to lead towards the spiritual, to the aspiration of being greater than we are. The dream of transcendance, that leads to living a better life. If paid lipservice to... well, actually, if someone's pretending to be good god fearing folk, then that's almost as good.
This is not to say that religion cannot be perverted. It has been, many times over the centuaries. Wars have been fought over differences in interpretation. Crusades have been started, because slaughtering the infidel was considered holy. And more recently, we have the Islamic fundamentalist perversions of the faith, leading to suicide bombing and terrorism.
There will always be people who walk willingly into evil. There will always be those who can be lead astray. This is why we have the safety net of law - law is essentially laying down the consequences of certain actions, for those who are not deterred by the general consensus of 'it being wrong'. This does actually tend to correlate quite highly with the prevalent religion - how could it be otherwise, when you have a society believing, or pretending to believe in certain key tenets as to how to lead their life.
It's this, I think, that might be the problem we are starting to see emerging in society today. I'd make the assertion that 'religion' is diminished, and almost negated in modern society. Our new 'religion' is the celebs, and the media. It's the glitz of hollywood, and the iconisation of stars.
But this religion is flawed - it has no structure to good and bad. It doesn't lead the 'average citizen' into aspirations which are good for society. At the end of the day, ruthlessness, malice, and corruption are VERY powerful. If one is prepared to apply them sufficiently, to be prepared to take advantage of every opportunity, no matter the cost to others, then ... well, would it suprise you to find that many of our top 'movers and shakers' in politics and industry are borderline psychopathic?
The drive to power, the drive to succeed, the drive to press onwards, and accept the consequential harm to others, is a very valid and powerful survival trait.
This can only really be tempered, by the collective assertion of 'what is good'. Religion serves as a very useful mechanism to this end. There's probably others, but at the very least, if society as a whole, condemns the 'immoral' then one is essentially forced into that morality, and conformity, by one's very drive to excel.
Different religions have different aspirations. I'd probably go as far as saying that all our current relgions have been over interpreted. Again, they've had bits hacked in, and elements read, to serve the purposes of the corrupt. Their original meaning distorted, to a short term advantage.
Perhaps it's a factor that's needed. But perhaps we don't actually need a priesthood to tell us what The Word of God actually is. I mean, if you got rid of most of the bible, and made the holy book the ten commandments, and a bit of exposition of the intent, I daresay a lot of the evil carried out in the name of christianity wouldn't have been pulled off so easily. It's a bit hard to say 'I have interpreted this holy work, and actually, it says it's ok to go and kill all those funny looking people in Jerusalem' when you've only got 10 lines to 'interpret' and one of them is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.
Perhaps we should be looking to review, and re-instill beliefs in society. Something nice and simple, and less prone to misintepretation, by evil men. But the effect of religion as a whole, on the growth of our society, I think overall has been a positive one.
Mankind needs the myth. It needs the hope of eternal reward, for a life well lead. The 'average working man' needs his guidance, for how he should live - he's not interested in considering religion, or not, he just wants to conform with a society. Society itself should be supplying the moral constraints of what is acceptable and what is not, and at the moment it is failing.
This myth is the balance, for the fact that is law. This myth is what manages the expectations, and leads the aspirations of the 'average man'. It's what manages the populace, and focusess their intent and objectives. It outlines what is meant, by a good life, well lead. It is used to manage the natural tendency to ruthlessness, to kill, maim and brutalise one's way to glory, by supplying a counterpoint, and a hard to contradict counter argument, for "why should I not take what I can?".
One might even call it myth management.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-17 11:53 am (UTC)Who would I put in charge of our morality? Well, almost no politician in this country since the venerable John Smith died his untimely death, that's for sure. Myself, probably, in the form of a benign dictatorship! Seriously, I'm afraid I coudn't agree with you about putting anyone in the upper echelons of the catholic church in charge, as long as said church holds its worldwide anti-contraception stance - world overpopulation is a huge problem (and a rant for a nother day) and will not be solved by people putting their heads in the sand and saying contraception goes against god.
Could I pull the lever/press the button? I honestly don't know. A few years ago I would have told you I would struggle to kill a fly in cold blood (although in a blood-rage temper I have knocked people out cold in the past, so I know I am capable of unpleasant things), but having had to put a number of small animals out of their misery thanks to our killer cats, I have had to reassess my own capability for violence. I think perhaps I could. I am pretty sure I would be capable of killing someone to defend a person or animal I cared about, and since I am passionate about my beliefs, IF I believed a person's execution would be for the greater good of society, then, yes, I believe there is a possibility I could flick that switch.