Religion: A Necessary Evil

Ideas can arise from the most unexpected places and the most peculiar times. As I sit under the warmth of my halogen desk lamp, reading endlessly to study for an AMS midterm, I was hit by the revelation whose description will follow. This quote from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Toqueville is the ignition of this sudden explosion of thought:

“The chief object and one of the principal advantages of religion is to provide answers to each of these primordial questions; these answers must be clear, precise, intelligible to the crowd, and very durable.”

Ironically, it immediately follows a dismissal of philosophy as being "contradictory...without ever firmly grasping the truth or even finding mistakes that are new." I conversely have found his argument to be rather stimulating philosophically, and will now elaborate.

Now, as I and masses of others before me have established, religions are largely, as de Tocqueville states, "...very false and very ridiculous." We see them as placebos for nonexistent drugs. They explain everything, which we know to be impossible. As I have continually attacked the institution of religion, however, I have been selfish. I did not commit to bizarre, contradictory, nonsensical voodoo for my own means. I thought they should be abolished. But what if, perhaps, society needed such things to survive?

Continue. The French Statesman refers to the decidedly undecided as "penetrating, subtle, and trained to think," and "far above the average capacities of men." He acknowledges their higher capability of thought, their ability to exceed the limits of understanding, or want of understanding, that has been imposed on humanity. He then accuses them of spending too much time with these abilities. He suggests that "Only minds singularly free from the ordinary preoccupations of life," can explore these deep thoughts, and "even if most men were capable to such inquiries, they clearly would not have time for them." I do beg to differ to these points--I seem to have found time to analyze his analysis in the midst of studying for an exam as I strive to get a degree in an entirely unrelated subject. Any rational man can question, albeit not to this level.

In order to buffer this concussion of arrogance, I will remind the religious that we who analyze from this perspective are not atheist, nor do we lean so far as Thomas Paine. No; we may not be categorized as biased because our ideas are derived not from anti-belief, but rather lack of belief entirely. Belief is inevitably inclined to a position or another--an metaphorical switch, as opposed to the neutrality of agnosticism. I can contest to the agnostic experience as being a pleasantly cool and fresh water stuffed between the sharp acidity of religions and baseness of atheism, both of which burn with equal strength.

But onward. The fact of the matter is, religion is a product of the common man (by which I mean the incalculable majority of mankind.) The common man must have morals, he must have structure to live by. This structure is not the truth. Truth is an invisible wall, an analogy described in detail elsewhere in my writing. But this is not that structure--this is social structure. Man must have social structure. Anarchy will fail in the world of man. Because he must have structure, there must be some material to build the structure from; be it straw or sticks, mud or bricks, religion. Religion defines society. It instates morals, and patterns, and commonality, and truths. False truths, really, and false morals, since even the most amateur of philosophers knows that morals are simply ghosts floating in bottomless pits. But religion inevitably contributes to the creation and sustenance of society. As de Tocqueville pointed out, church and state were formally separated by the Constitution, but the indirect influence is absolutely inevitable.

My revelation is this: religion is necessary. It is necessary for that majority of mankind to exist. Without it, society would collapse and men would fall to "anarchy and impotence." Says de Tocqueville, "One must recognize, whether or not (religions) save men's souls in the next world, that they greatly contribute to their happiness and dignity in this." They must have something to lead them. They are terrified of "limitless independence."

What is good for a man is not necessarily good for society as a whole. There are the few that strive to understand more, who salivate for knowledge and enjoy pondering "contradictory ideas on which the mind of man has been ceaselessly tossed for thousands of years..." They may not find it, but they are closer to the truth. However, the majority of man does not yearn for such a truth; he yearns for comfort in this world and security of the next. This is the basis of social structure. It maintains order, and, in rare instances, establishes peace. The philosophers are the tormented yet privileged few.

This is the sole instance in any analysis I have yet produced for which I cannot conjure an analogical situation. It must simply be understood, and perhaps may only be understood by one who can propose it. This is the eternal dilemma of the philosopher.



Current Mood: Exhausted
Listening To: Red Noise

Batter Up

Death is like leaving the ballgame early. You are certain to miss something, miss a good play, miss the roaring crowd, miss the end score. Only in the ballgame of life, there is no end score. The plays continue, the unexpected happens, the weather changes, players are injured and others enter the field. We all leave the ballgame early. We only stay for a few innings, and are then called from the bleachers by the inevitably terminal nature of life.

We want the home team to win--we strive to beat our opponents, to see it all play out, gripping our seats and anxiously awaiting as the clock ticks away. When we go to a ballgame, do we not feel relieved when the game ends and the home team has prevailed? Do we not slowly forget the emotion of that game as we go about our lives, until the next ballgame? That is why the clock continues to tick. That is why man was designed without the ability to win the game, without the ability beat life; he may never lose interest in it.

Current Mood: Tired

Listening To: "Leave" by R.E.M.

Rainforest

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that gorillas were capable of advanced abstract thought. If that were to be so, a gorrilla living in the rainforest unintroduced to humans must think himself the smartest of all the animals. He believes god has gifted him with the highest rank in the natural hierarchy. He would arrogantly proclaim that god must therefore be in his form, representative of the brightest, most powerful creature of all.

This notion is ridiculous to humans, for they know they are smarter. Why then is it not possible that we are living in our own rainforest? Could there not be a more intellligent being somewhere in this vast universe that looks upon humans, amused by our foolishness? They then might proclaim god to be similar to themselves, and so on.

This chain of senseless imbecility continues until it is broken by a life form that uniformly understands the fallacy of proclaiming the form of god, or even proclaiming god at all. Could it not be that god has no form, or one unimaginable? Could it be that there is no god? These are hypotheses concocted only by the strong mind. The weak submit blindly to yet unproven theories, while the philosopher continues to create and modify such theories, considering all but never accepting any.

Current Mood: Relaxed

Listening To: "Destination Unknown" by Marietta

Drugs & Philosophy

Some people believe that drugs can give them a spiritual experience. They think that a blend of chemicals can take them on a journey to a faraway place where they can discover what they are searching for.

I call bullshit.

The intelligent person always waits for an explanation, which is why only the intelligent will keep reading after I divulge the fact that I am vehemently against the use of drugs for recreational and spiritual purposes, period. As applied to current events, the only people who benefit from this despicable habit are the drug lords worldwide who kill both with their own machetes and diamond-studded glocks and indirectly through uncontrolled, massive overdoses of benzoylmethylecgonine and the like. I personally don't care if people overdose, I really don't; it is more the innocent victims in other countries that I do not see deserving of its effects.

Personally I would prefer that some of the minor substances be legalized and heavily monitored and taxed. This would disassemble a primary source of unnecessary death in all corners of the Earth, allow idiot potheads to kill themselves off in the same sense as those who worship big tobacco, while allowing the occasional blunt-sucker to escape the guilt of killing Columbian school children. But I digress, this is a political shitstorm not fit for this conversation.

Now, if you aren't an idiot pothead totally offended by the carpet-bombing of reasons that I call you an idiot pothead, I shall now explain.

There is always talk about "meaning," and "finding the meaning of life" and the "meaning of the universe" and "the meaning of Swiss cheese." It is nothing but blabber. Rather than attempting to find meaning, it is better to try and make it. Has it never occurred to anyone that they are worthless? We are, in the scale of things, absolutely worthless. However, on a fluffier note, we do have meaning in relation to each other. It is for this reason that we see Galileo and da Vinci, Voltaire and Gandhi as great men, and crackhead Jimmy as useless. In relation to the world, in relation to the rest of humanity, we have gauged the worth of their actions and their lives. They used the time they were given (by god or whomever) as a chance to create a persona that they could take pride in, and that others could value. Those who spend all of their time searching for meaning are wasting their time, and will fall into the category of people deemed worthless by society (a moderate number, although not the majority.) The language here is important: "all of their time..." It is human to look to the sky and ask open-ended questions, so long as we turn towards each other and make ourselves useful from time to time. The "useless" refers to those who lie for days on end on their backs in the grass of Central Park in a thick haze of pot smoke, staring at where the stars should be and call themselves "philosophers."

This is where the drugs kick in, so to speak. Aside from the violence of the drug trade, and, oh, other effects like the destruction of families, increase in crime, the tax money put aside for recovering addicts and other things I despise, I loathe drugs because of their pointlessness. "But marijuana lets me see the light," and "ecstasy amplifies life," and other blithering statements. In the same manner that Tylenol eases headaches and Bayer can stop a heart attack, drugs in general affect the non-thinking body and occasionally the limbic system, not the frontal cortex and rational mind. Therefore, everything you experience due to the effects of drugs is...due to the effects of drugs. Should you have somehow leapfrogged the "searching for meaning" argument and suggest that drugs assist spirituality, allow me to retort. Cannabis does not have the truth, it has Tetrahydrocannabinol. Acid does not have the secrets of the gods, but it does have lysergic acid diethylamide. So you see, if you think you're philosophical adventures are the result of your god-given ability to rationally think, you're wasting your time. And mine.

Current Mood: Aggravated

Listening To: "Mehr" by Rammstein

Hierarchy of God

If I were to believe in a higher power (which I will never commit to,) I would say that at the very top of the chain there must be one god. It is possible that a god controls this universe, and that there are others out there controlled by other gods. Nothing is outside the realm of possibility here, because it's absolutely nothing more than pissing in the wind.

However, at the very top, I say there would be one god, because in a true hierarchy, there is a king. Many would refer to the analogy of a pyramid, but that's not only a poor allegory, it's entirely backwards. The base of a pyramid supports the levels ascending above it. I prefer the example of a mobile, a massive and intricate mobile where everything leads to the one thread that holds the entire fixture up. That string is representative of "the almighty."

"But..." an intelligent mind might question, "...from what is this apparatus suspended? Where is it...some gravitational force must hold it down to prevent the hierarchy from floating and tangling. What...who...where...?" "Ah," says I, "this is the leap from the cliffs of knowledge, where the solid Earthen truth is packed comfortably beneath your feet." You now fall into the contorted helplessness of the unknown. Reason can test the theories of a higher power and such, but it eventually trails off into the darkness. It is therefore useless to even begin. Amusing, certainly, but useless.

Current Mood: Confused

Listening To: "Roter Sand" by Rammstein

Balance

Most people go about their lives with no consideration for the why while fixated on the what. Then there are those who deviate from the what completely and spend their time questioning nothing but the why. I believe both cases are an imbalance; life should not be lived in ignorance of meaning nor should it be analyzed down to the point of exhaustion. I prefer to determine the what and then venture into the realm of the why. I prefer to know first and then question the knowledge or the origin of the knowledge, rather than to simply know or to aggressively conjure baseless philosophy. Man was endowed with reason for this purpose; it must utilize the defined variables in order to ponder the unknown. With no foundation, it collapses into the vastness of the universe, incapable not only of determining impossible answers but also to questions more simply determined with scientific discovery and empirical process. The issue must be known before it is debated.

Current Mood: Thoughtful

Listening To: N/A

Perspective

I am terrified of my own perspective. It is twisted with the prejudice of human nature, a vile and blinded beast. The truth is a lone black hole amongst a constellation of ideological inconsistencies. Those who seek it are drawn towards it, yet it cannot be seen. It is largely unprocurable by human thought, which is unworthy of the full scope of its magnitude. A man can only try to eliminate the false apparitions of what other men follow as truth, for he knows that it is invisible. Whittling away pieces of the massive log of collective human beliefs, his sharpened blade of logic closes in on the figure of truth. And then, with a final slice, he realizes that there is nothing left but chips upon the floor, for truth is amorphous. Seeing this, he must accept that all people are too poisoned with subjectivity to catch the full form of the ghost that is truth. He goes about his life in the manner that he pleases, but is never so arrogant as to enforce upon others what he interprets the truth to be, for he knows that no man can fully comprehend it. He returns to such questions occasionally for entertainment of the mind, but understands that he must be content with conclusions that are ever undefined.

Current Mood: Quixotic

Listening To: N/A