Welcome to the final instalment of my essay on The Religion of Society. You can find previous parts on my essays page. I’m going to try and draw everything to a conclusion now and see what we have.
I think I’ve successfully made my point that there are a great many comparisons that can be drawn between a society and a religious system. The more interesting question is why.
It could I suppose be speculated that if the structure of a religion is divinely inspired, that the divine structures inspired those of society. I have to say that I’ve not seen any evidence of a divine inspiration in religion that sways me, so I would tend towards shelving this idea pending further evidence.
This leads to my own view. I think that both religions and societies have a common source, a source that can easily be seen by everyone. It’s in plain view, just look in the mirror. Human beings tend to form power hierarchies and have a tendency to follow a leader, form social structures and codify rules. We respond to incentives and avoid punishment, both systems follow this “carrot and stick” approach. There’s a pay-off for following the system. This also means that if something comes along to threaten the carrot (be it atheists or anarchists) then we attack to protect the pay-off. Not just for ourselves, but for those we care about.
Both systems do just that and inspire these sort of responses. Religion came first, but the growth of secular society came later with the divine element left out of the recipe as science subjected it to a withering hail of fire. My view on the future is that secular society will keep growing, it’s a view that seems backed up by the figures I’ve seen on the subject. I do, of course, write with a British perspective on these figures.
Drawing this to a close, I’d like to talk about things that have occurred to me since I wrote this essay. It occurs to me that this could all be viewed as tribalism, both systems could be said to be tribal, with leaders, followers, rules, social structures, etc. But that discussion is a bit big for this post, so maybe another time. Secondly, when I started writing this post, I realised I hadn’t discussed for corporations in all of this. But that too is something I will leave to another time and for your own reflections.
The slow changing of the way of life we take for granted here in the West is proceeding relentlessly. Along the way it’s turning out to be fairly instructive to watch the politics and the posturing. Quite a few of our leaders can be seen clinging to the old ideas, the old paradigms. They’re trying to defend a status quo that is, at least partially, undefendable.
It seems to me that the logic used to do this defensive work is often that of duality. For example they put forward the idea that it’s “growth or ruin”, or in terms of transport that it’s “oil power or green tech”. The list goes on and I imagine every reader could add an example. All of this is presented to us in a very “good vs evil” dualistic way. We are reassured by the simple plain views, the clear easy choice, but are these choices really that clear cut?
Take oil power or green cars for example, why no mention of a boost in public transport and the creation of walkable cities? Also, economic growth vs deflation is presented with a few assumptions about which is best, but with no mention of the steady state society. Also no mention of the fact that future growth might be very constrained.
I’ve come to the opinion that the point of this sort of thing is to prevent a real debate on the very important issues. We are steered onto desired courses via a ‘false dilemma’ fallacy, presented with two choices chosen from a larger set with the aim of blinkering us to the possibilities. The whole aim of this seems to me, to be to present a series of false choices that defends the status quo to the bitter end.
We need our capabilities of skepticism and critical thinking more than ever.
Well, this is an interesting thing. I recently treated myself to an Android smartphone, and was looking at my site on there.
I decided it was a bit unwieldy, to put things politely. So I did a little hunting and found a great plugin called “WordPress Mobile Edition”. I’ve installed and tested it, it seems to be working very well and I can honestly say that I’m very pleased.
It was created by Crowd Favorite, so here’s a big vote of thanks to them!
Welcome to the third part of my series on The Religion of Society. If you’re new to this series, you can find the whole series linked on my articles page. So without further ado, I’ll get started.
I’ve previously drawn parallels between the structure of a religion and that of a society. I’ve covered the tenets and also the structure, but what about the priesthood? In my opinion, it can certainly be said that society has a pseudo-priesthood. A religion has an easily recognisable priesthood (most of the time), but a society? The function of a priesthood in society seems to me to be performed by politicians, the judiciary and celebrities, though whether this is knowingly is a matter for some debate. Of course, there is a more grass roots presence, I have always considered Paganism to be more like that. Similarly in society, we have local celebrities “characters” and also local politicians. These people might be home grown, but they have a similar (if locally limited) effect to the national and international public figures.
The ‘priesthood’ creates and interprets the ‘scriptures’ and helps enforce the ‘orthodoxy’ of the society or religion. In a religion, the creation of scripture and orthodoxy tends to be more formally done. For example, the Council of Nicea in 325AD; which resulted in the creation of an orthodox Christian doctrine. A similar thing happened in Buddhism with the first Buddhist Council in 543-542 BCE. Interpretation is a matter for priests and laymen were certainly discouraged from putting their own interpretations on things. Of course, things are different these days, though I think this is due to the influence of western society on religion.
In society, this tends to be an ongoing process. Laws are passed, repealed and amended. Then interpreted in courts and enforced with varying levels of strictness. Celebrities set or magnify trends and crazes and have an impact that neither law nor religion can emulate. But all of this does have a coherence, think national character, each nation has a distinct flavour.
Of course, both priesthoods are really part of a feedback process. As society got more sophisticated, the actual interpretations evolved a little as did the attitudes of the religious priesthood. Less of the fire and brimstone, more of the meek and mild. A message that might work on a deprived inner city congregation might not be so effective on a wealthier suburban audience. The sermons might also reflect that communities challenges, what they’re going through and would have to be tailored a little to their group character. So the priesthood could be seen, in ways, to act as a weathervane (or a mirror) for their followers.
Politicians are the same, they’ll change their tune quite readily. Celebrities caught getting a little too far away from orthodoxy will often issue public mea culpas, apologising to their public. It’s an interesting turn of phrase that one, their public, or maybe their flock? Worth a ponder in my opinion.
Ascension to the priesthood is strictly controlled in both cases, in the regular priesthood there is the seminary (or priest school). A society has various methods, taking the route into politics is one and from there into local or national government. Non-politicians can try the celebrity route, either the old fashioned way, or more recently via reality television. This does tend to lead to people who are famous for being famous, with no real idea what they contribute, but that’s getting off the subject.
OK, that concludes this part. I will attempt to write a shorter concluding part to wrap all this up and bring it to closure. With any luck I’ll manage it for next weekend, but no promises.
Creative Commons Acknowledgement.
The photo of the Priests Canteen is by sgatto and is under by-nc-nd.
I’d like to continue from a previous post, about The Cult of Knowledge. I’d like to do a little musing.
I was musing on the Taoist idea of emptiness recently, emptiness in Taoism doesn’t mean the same thing as we Westerners are used to. It’s more the idea of a space filled with potential. In fact it’s emptiness that gives things their value.
Don’t believe me? Consider a cup. There’s a handle, and possibly a nice pattern, but what makes it a cup is the space for the drink, the emptiness where the contents must go. In fact the handle wouldn’t be much use without a hold in the middle would it? It’s the same with more or less anything you look at, the emptiness it what gives a thing value, the thing that really brings it to life.
Okay, let’s start working back to the subject of my previous post. I suggested last time that knowledge wasn’t the be all and end all, that the fixation with the accumulation of knowledge could be a bad thing. Which is, as far as I am concerned, true. There’s nothing worse than a know it all, and the know it all misses a lot because his or her head is full. But I will allow a short Zen story to illustrate my point:
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor’s cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. “It’s overfull! No more will go in!” the professor blurted. “You are like this cup,” the master replied, “How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup.”
In the martial art of Taijiquan, we are not taught lists of counters and blocks. Rather, we are led to a way of moving and being. Not rigid and full, but flexible and empty. It is this emptiness that frees us to react.
How does this relate back to my point on knowledge? Consider that knowledge provides a space, it can frame an area, in the same way as our cup. Within this framework, we deploy our skills and abilities, we adapt and change. These qualities are the things that make this knowledge actually useful.
When we hoard too much knowledge, it will fill the space, thus putting us in a position of inflexibility. We may be unable to innovate and unable to move, we suffer “Paradigm Paralysis”, becoming so fixated with current models and knowledge that we cannot see beyond them and it. Creative Commons Acknowledgement.
Welcome to the second part of my multi part essay exploring a few ideas on the parallels between Western society and religion. There is a previous essay which will also be linked on my essays page. Before I get started, I think I should define exactly what I’m talking about when I use the word ‘tenets’.
“a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession” – (http://www.merriam-webster.com/)
A few examples of the sort of thing I’m talking about are “transubstantiation”, “free market economics”,“virgin birth”,”the right to trial by jury”,”reincarnation” and ”freedom of speech”.
In both religion and society, the tenets of the system need to be accepted for a person to really take part properly. An inability to accept these tenets can be met with broadly similar consequences in both systems, a degree of ostracism with consequences for social standing. In religion, you might do penance and in society it can cause problems for your career.
The actual tenets themselves seem to be largely defined by a central authority, in religion this is usually a senior priesthood or charismatic founder, in society politicians and celebrities with the judiciary refining things as they go. The tenets of a religion are broadcast from the pulpit, while the tenets of a society are broadcast and reinforced by the mainstream media. Of course, people will reinforce the tenets among themselves to a degree as this is our group identity.
As I said earlier, acceptance of the tenets is required, but people being people the exact details can get a little fuzzy from place to place. The tenets can have local variances and you might also find that certain things aren’t accepted in some areas that are in others. A great example from the religious camp is the whole business of homosexual clergy in Anglicanism. It’s accepted in some places in the USA, but not in Africa. From the societal end of things, I can point out differences in approaches to banking and capitalism between the US and Europe. Europe seems more unionised and also has a better approach to work/life balance than the US. In addition to this, both systems have a spectrum of adherence from literal fundamentalists right through to liberals with a very flexible approach.
A final observation I want to make is that the tenets do evolve slowly, the Zeitgeist moves on, always changing gradually. Admittedly sometimes there is a bit of kicking and screaming along the way (women priests for example), but changes do happen over time. Despite the view that certain things are “built on a rock”, the rock itself does shift and change slowly.
OK, I’ll wrap this part up now as I feel that I’ve said everything I have to say on the tenets. I hope I’ll be able to have the next part ready in 7 days time.
I had a raised eyebrow moment when I read this report on the BBC. It’s something that I freely admit I never expected to hear from a serving politician.
To give a quick summary, as I’m aware that these things do vanish sooner or later:
“Atheists could set up their own schools in England under the government’s education reforms, Education Secretary Michael Gove has said.”
The article goes on to explain a little further, with a further quote from Prof Dawkins:
“I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion. Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded.”
I must say that I have watched the argument over faith schools, as they are something I feel strongly about. I agree with Prof Dawkins, children should be taught to think for themselves, be shown critical thinking and the scientific method. Children should not be indoctrinated either for, or against, religion. Put simply, religion has no place in the school system.
I asked a friend who writes more then I do for some feedback on my previous post, she was good enough to give me some clear pointers. But one thing that she made clear was that I’d glossed things over, in fact I’d covered things much too quickly. She’s right and I’m going to make an attempt in the next couple of weeks to explore my ideas in a bit more depth.
I think it’s fair to start with the observation that our religions have, and still can, play a highly controlling part in society. This is usually informally and hand in hand with secular rulers (think religious politicians), but often with enough power of their own that these rulers would not provoke them thoughtlessly. After all, priests could have you executed or banished for arguing with them, and whilst kings have their glamour, priests had a hotline to the ineffable. Of course, as we can see in the West, this power has now shifted heavily towards the secular rulers, to the point that the words of the priests are often disregarded and the police will happily raid a church if they feel they need to (as happened recently in Belgium).
This has, in my opinion, caused a significant move towards faith in a society and its agencies and away from faith in a religion and its agencies. This tends to have a lot of the same characteristics, including an unquestioning belief for many that their society is always right and better, whatever the actual facts might be. Of course, we have a lot invested in these things mentally and often physically and financially, thus the world view that stems from a persons faith (or indeed their society) can frame everything for them. Any challenge to this is highly unwelcome, an observation that leads me onwards.
As in the case of religious faith, questioning this ‘societal faith’ invites swift and harsh criticism from some quarters, which is very understandable in light of my previous paragraph. After all, any challenge to that faith is more than intellectual, it strikes emotionally as well. Our answers to life’s questions and problems are found in the framework of our society or faith. To question that can feel like a very personal attack, it attacks the persons life choices and possibly their sense of who they are.
In religious terms, you’d be a “Heretic”, an “Infidel”, or a “Heathen” and in secular terms you’re a “Commie”, a “Traitor” or a “Subversive”. Interestingly, all of these are ‘ad hominem’ in that they condemn the person without addressing their ideas. I think it’s fair to say that these sort of terms are used to put down the ideas of both secular and religious heretics without thought or consideration. Of course, this is very likely because the faith (whichever that is) can’t afford to have those ideas examined closely. In each respective system you can be ‘excommunicated’ or ‘ostracised’ and capital punishment has been an option in both systems and still is in many places.
In both secular and religious systems we have competing groups and also sub factions within those groups. We can call the groups, ‘faiths’ or ‘nations’, it might then also be fair to call the factions ‘sects’ or ‘political parties’. These groups most often form around a charismatic leader, be it a “Koresh” or a “Stalin”, then power hierarchies form and a dogma is drawn up. There are always disagreements between groups, which can result in conflicts (armed or verbal) for ideology or practical power or the calving of sub groups.
To wrap up this first part, let me say that I take the view that there are definite parallels between a religion and a society. I hope I’ve demonstrated this, or at least planted the seeds of further thought, as is my usual aim. I’m hoping to get more into the ‘Tenets of the Religion’ in Part 2.
I happened across this video, courtesy of TED. It’s a headset that work by reading your brainwaves and at this stage looks like an idea that is coming along very, very nicely.
I’ll only say that I would love one of these for Second Life, but I imagine it’s a few years off a consumer release as yet!
I’ve been harbouring a slightly anti-knowledge view for the last few years. Not against the idea itself, but against what could be termed ‘The Cult of Knowledge’.
I define this as the idea that we should know everything, that to openly confess ignorance is frowned upon. Not to know is intimated as failure, and there is a feeling that we should have all the facts to hand.
It has the result that people are frightened to ask questions, for fear of seeming foolish. I’ve seen this in action throughout my life, in school, college and also at work. I’ve seen people seem frozen with the seeming embarrassment of not knowing, but in reality it’s better to admit this than to carry on under false pretences. I’ve seen managers who expect their staff to have encyclopaedic knowledge of subjects they rarely deal with, and also expect them to waste their time memorising this stuff when a perfectly good reference exists.
Then we have people who consider a particular pet methodology or system (this is prevalent amongst the geek community), if you haven’t heard of it then woe betide you! Yet, one could easily level the charge back: “I was doing quite well without this, I have many calls on my time, why should I spend it on this?”
It seems as if it could be an ego trip, to expect that either you should be able to command encyclopaedic knowledge but also a way of putting down others when they don’t know, a way to stoke a sense of superiority perhaps?
Speaking personally, having had exposure to Taoist thought on the matter, I find the whole notion quite ridiculous.
Chuang-Tzu [1] is quite explicit, “On Levelling all things”:
“For the Tao which is manifest is not Tao. Speech which argues falls short of its aim. Kindness which has fixed objects loses its scope. Integrity which is obvious is not believed in. Courage which pushes itself forward never accomplishes anything. These five are, as it were, round (mellow) with a strong bias towards squareness (sharpness). Therefore that knowledge which stops at what it does not know, is the highest knowledge.”
The Tao Te Ching [2] has it’s own say in Chapter 48:
“Pursue knowledge, daily gain
Pursue Tao, daily loss
Loss and more loss
Until one reaches unattached action
With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do
Take the world by constantly applying non-interference
The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world”
I prefer to honestly acknowledge that I don’t have all the answers, but if it’s needed, then I’m prepared to make the effort to find out. It’s not the accumulation of knowledge we should value, but the ability to discover and apply knowledge, this knowledge is worthless without the skills that surround it.
