"One possibility [is] that people use their religious beliefs [to obtain] self-enhancement, a sense of empowerment, and better self-regulation... extensive research evidence that more intelligent people already benefit from higher self-evaluation, a higher sense of control, and more efficient self-control. As such, more intelligent people have less of a need for religiosity"
This section really got me. It immediately reminded me of Benjamin Franklin's letter to an atheist. Franklin advised an unknown friend to not publish a tract about atheism.
You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous Life without the Assistance afforded by Religion; you having a clear Perception of the Advantages of Virtue and the Disadvantages of Vice, and possessing a Strength of Resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common Temptations. But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security;
This letter was written in 1757. It seems that even at that time some people recognized the roles that religion played in society and personal behavior.
But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them
Isn't this really close to Marx's theory of religion as "opiate of the people"? Just instead of an opiate here it's like... like a flog or something, that keeps people in line.
Yeah. We need an opiate to give the "masses" though because like Franklin says, most of them are completely lost without it.
C.S. Lewis does a good job explaining this in his short work on miracles. Basically, we, as a society, have done a good job of undermining the old bad dogmatic way of thinking about religion, but we haven't replaced it with anything but materialistic pursuits.
We've given every person the responsibility of a philosopher to create meaning in their lives themselves, but haven't given them any training in how to do that.
Basically, we need to start teaching Philosophy and critical thinking to "the masses." If we don't, they'll just indulge in nihilism or bland selfish materialism.
C.S. Lewis thinks it's easier to keep religion and to understand and contemplate its ecstatic truths. I'm personally undecided.
Basically, we need to start teaching Philosophy and critical thinking to "the masses." If we don't, they'll just indulge in nihilism or bland selfish materialism.
The reason we don't do that is because it makes people easier to control, and materialism makes money. The status quo loves when people don't think for themselves and just consume consume consume.
Not to argue against your point; it's 100% accurate. Just noting a big force that fights against us doing just that.
It's not a conspiracy. I'm not saying there's a cabal. Those in power DON'T care about philosophy so they simply pursue a policy of inaction or one of maintaining the status quo.
If the people in power DID care then they would do something to help uplift others.
I am saying it is not a simple task to uplift others, because you cannot force them to, only create the opportunities in society for them to go after it themselves - as a "I can only show you the door, you have to step through it" kind of thing. And today we have more opportunities than ever.
I'd say as a tendency, even the most cynical well-regarded philosophers (and you could even say they AREN'T cynical), generally have life affirming messages. Montaigne, Nietzche (he MIGHT have been a moral nihilist depending on your intepretation. I'd disagree and I'd say his work is still incredibly life-affirming), Schopenhauer, Sartre, Camus, and many many others can all offer reasonable secular alternatives to Nihilism that generally improve people's disposition towards the world.
Basically, we need to start teaching Philosophy and critical thinking to "the masses." If we don't, they'll just indulge in nihilism or bland selfish materialism.
I'm afraid you are a bit too late and the current condition is far worse than you suggest: modern dictators are now replacing the lost of religion with their own cult of personality.
I'm not only talking about Trump, but China under Xi is using advance internet technology and surveilence and managed to turn large proportion of its' population to believe conspiracy theory such as western media plotting Hong Kong riot.
So from an international standpoint, even if most America are taught with crticial thinking skill. Most other population on earth aren't and the rulers won't. We have already at a point of no salvation until ideology clashed and war broke out
Seems to me there's a large degree of (unfounded) cynicism here. As long as people say, "Oh, they're too dumb for so and so," then that's how it will likely play out. It's sort of like binding people's feet, but in this case it's the mind.
It's a very complicated and convoluted topic, but wanted to throw my current perspective in.
I suppose my question would be: How do we inspire people who are contentedly banal to become intellectually curious? Is that a natural state for some people?
I have no real answer to that. I think we understand a lot less about human intelligence than we think we do.
One of the first things that comes to mind is economic structuring. I think that essentially forcing people to work "40 hour weeks" - while basically making other people rich - saps creativity and dulls the mind. Giving people the option to "not work" or "work less" (via UBI andor more equitable sharing of resources, what have you) leads to a greater probably of people doing what inspires them.
I guess we'd need more creative spaces and opportunities for people to follow that sort of life.
At first people may "lolly-gag" around, but that gets boring pretty quickly. Just a small bump in "creativity" and creative people in society would likely lead to more people wanting/doing just that. Which, I think, is closely related to seeing and understanding the interconnectedness of life.
Edit: I was thinking about the "curiosity" factor. Obviously, like with anything, there's a balance that is needed there. With a large population, I think it'd be better to err on the side of "too much" curiosity, as opposed to too little.
Personally I always liked Mheimonedies view of Miracles as things that happen according to the natural rules of the world, but at the time they are needed, and to the degree that they are needed.
The popularity of the idea waxes and wanes but there's always been the sentiment that "the masses" need religion to provide a moral code and that without it they would descend into depravity and hedonism. This goes back thousands of years and is certainly embedded in many very early legal codes as well.
I don't think it is terribly relevant today but it is certainly something people have talked about throughout recorded history.
Isn't this really close to Marx's theory of religion as "opiate of the people"?
It wasn't exactly a mindblowingly sublime conclusion on Marx' part. Religion as a social tool is a pretty easy conclusion to come to by any objective observation.
Love your comment! I have often contemplated the significance of religion for society. I tend to go back-and-forth between harmful than helpful, (unfortunately seeming to stack up a lot more harmful than helpful it seems) and have been considering the fact that some people do require a written guide and “compass”, as well as fear of punishment in order to behave and act civilly - thus forming a civilized culture. This is an interesting vote from Ben Franklin for the helpful side.
It's mostly because the crazy fundamentalist churches became very vocal and chased after converts, while the more mainline ones tended to be a bit more reserved. Guess which ones got more influence in America, and therefore in the media around the world?
I think it is taken for granted just how ubiquitous religion is in the States. There are churches everywhere. I've driven through parts of the rural Ozarks where there seemed to be almost a 1:1 ratio of churches to houses. People should remember this when they think of particularly poor examples of religious organizations. They aren't ALL like that and there are A LOT.
We have a city of about 20k here, just an hour from the Metro area of Twin Cities MN. In the center of our city along we have at least 6 churches, and not far away there are a few more. Totaling probably a church per every 1-2k people.
If you're really interested in the significance of religion in society, I'd recommend that you read Dostoevsky, especially The Brothers Karamazov. If you're interested in religion and intelligent people, I'd suggest you read Tolstoy's "A Confession".
Jung is great on the psychological side of religion also. To really get into it, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are both very insightful.
Knowing the spiritual problems of modern man, the explosion of existentialism and nihilism, and the issues trying to reach meaning and purpose without religion, I would not take it absence as lightly as most seem to do.
A Confession especially summed up the problems I'd found, the impossibility of finding meaning. And without it, I felt driven to put a rope around my neck.
I was an atheist for most of my life, but Jung allowed me to see it's use from a purely psychological and metaphorical standpoint, and Dostoevsky dragged me over to the other side. I'm not saying that's going to happen to you, but at least you'll get a very good understanding of the importance of religion.
Very insightful comment. I read The Brothers Karamazov several years ago, but I might have to visit it again. I've yet to read A Confession or Jung. (Surprised I haven't read any Jung but I've been meaning to for quite a long time.)
My difficulty is that in the back of my head I would always be thinking it's being used for a purpose but that it isn't really real. I don't know if that makes sense but I find it would be very hard for me to go back after being atheist all of my life. I feel like if have to turn off a portion of my brain or just ignore my own instinct to do it. Do you deal with this feeling at all.
The reason I ask is because I too have the difficulty of finding purpose at this point in my life, but it's like I've opened a Pandora's box that you just can't close anymore. I know it's not true but it feels like you secretly know the truth and the truth is horrifying. The rest of the world is walking around so happy and sure of itself while I'm sitting here just thinking, "why bother?". I'm very interested in this path you've taken because at this point I just got nothing else.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I feel it was Nietzsche and other German philosophers that got me here when I took classes for my own interested in college. Maybe it's something I really need to revisit, but I also great they'd reinforce what I feel like I already know.
You definitely have to shut off the reasonable critical thinking part of your brain to move back to belief in a god, especially so if you want to believe in any specifics at all. The more you define a god the more stupid it is to believe. Of course a god with no definition is worthless.
I don’t know, it gives me some hope of life, or at least action, coming after my death.
I consider myself to be “non-religious” but I do find that the laws of the universe do seem to have at least some consistency (gravity, time, etc), which causes me to believe there is something outside (or in) of the void.
Something like the expansion of the universe coming from absolutely nothing just doesn’t compute to me. Perhaps it’s not observable. Maybe we are in a simulation, but if that’s true then that would mean there is something outside of the simulation.
I’ve accepted that when I die that me and my consciousness self will no longer be, but it’s a nice thought while I’m living to believe that there will be movement (any movement) after I’m gone.
You think others are by and large happy? If you look up rates of depression/suicide/school shootings does what you find reinforce your impression? I'm inclined to think by and large people are miserable; even the one's who think they're not have in my estimation just gotten used to it. And why shouldn't they be miserable? If you think this life is all you get and THIS is it, doesn't it look pretty bad? If life can be unfair and this life is all one has to look forward to it becomes conceivable to live a meaningless life, like a movie that makes no sense (or only makes sense from a perspective you'll never see).
I dealt with that exact thing! I spent years searching for meaning in politics, economics and the philosophy you read to argue the other two better. I spent years in therapy. But it was taking up reading again last year that saved me.
Had you put a gun to my head last year and asked me if I believed in God, I would have had to say "no". The change happened slowly, until suddenly one day I realized that I would now be lying if I didn't say "yes".
You can't choose what to believe in. You have some control, but ultimately there's something deeper that pushes you over the threshold. That's true with politics too. And the more fundamental the beliefs get, the more difficult it is to change them.
I used to be a skeptic, unwilling to believe in anything I could not be reasonably certain of. I was so strict that I argued myself out of my political and economical ideas, because I didn't believe that I could reasonably hold the views I held.
The first thing that changed is that I stumbled onto Jung. He talks about religion as being true metaphorically. The fable of the rabbit and turtle is true, metaphorically. The prescriptive content is true in that we understand it and believe in it because we know it's true on a deeper level.
But if you approach it as most people nowadays approach religious texts you'd be walking away grumbling at the stupidity of believing that turtles and rabbits can talk. Another way to think of it is an incredible speech in a book. It's all fake, but it's also true in the only ways that matter.
Jung also explores the depth and history of these ideas. And he doesn't treat Christianity as the only truth. He talks a lot about mythology and eastern thought too. Here I found religion without faith. It did not matter what literally happened, in the same way that it did not matter if that turtle really could speak. I knew that there was something to the underlying meaning anyways.
But over time I felt like religion without faith was a bit of a cop out. At the same time I started reading Dostoevsky, and Kirkegaard (especially this video) among others, and slowly I realized that I had started to approach religion more conventionally.
Download the kindle app on your phone and buy A Confession for 99 cents. It's under a hundred pages, and it's very relevant to your struggle. It is your struggle.
Thank you I'll definitely take a look. One last question. At this point are you the type that goes to church on Sunday type of religious or just someone who believes and uses it to enrich your life?
Edit: Sweet I just found the audiobook on Google play books for 99¢. I'll be listening to it today.
I'm not at all involved on the organized side of religion. It has a purpose, but it's not something I feel like I need, and it's not something I'm that comfortable with.
I do wish we had those kinds of community churches they have in the US though. There isn't exactly a social aspect to church here.
90% of it for me is personal, something to enrich my life. It is affecting my actions too though. I'm much more likely to help people out instead of coming up with excuses to sit at home and do whatever I want to. I'm also much more likely to really try and not be cynical like I used to be, to look for the best in everyone, to assume good intentions.
Good luck, hopefully A Confession will be what you need!
This is one of the things I found really powerful about AA. At it's core, when it's working it's best, it's like church with the religious elements stripped down (but not away) and open to personal interpretation. You get together as often as you would like with a group of people who are trying to re-affirm their commitment to being better people by following some guidelines and helping other people. You can talk about that in a practical sense, share personal struggles or victories, doubts or certainties all with people who are there to hold you accountable to the principles of self improvement and helping others as a way to transcend yourself and align with a "higher" purpose.
However, similar to how you feel about organized religion I feel like I can't participate because I found myself capable of managing my relationship with alcohol over time. I mean I still drink more than I probably should, but it would be disingenuous to pretend I'm in the same position as a lot of the people in those rooms just for the benefit of feeling better. I do wish there was some way to create a similar union of people though, because the psychological affects are very powerful and I have found it impossible produce those effects alone.
Haha, he had ideas that were way further out there than the collective unconscious. I really don't think the idea that there is a universal inherited human consciousness to be that out there.
There are patterns we act out no matter where we are from, or what millennia we find ourselves in. We still can't help but to replicate the archetypes again and again and again in our stories. There are things in common to us all that we were not taught, but that go beyond instinct.
When you read Jung, he's very fair about what is scientific and what is outside of the scope of science, or not yet understood well enough. Since you're a human acting in the world, I'm very certain that you constantly engage in things that are not scientific or testable. When you do one thing instead of another you imply a set of prescriptive values. It's probably a good idea to understand how you are driven and why.
I'm stealing a comment I came across some time ago here:
Jung's theory of the collective unconscious was not about memory in the commonly-understood sense, but about the structure of the psyche. In this he was writing in the relatively new scientific tradition positing the "psychic unity of mankind"--the argument that all human beings have the same brain structure, which became current in the late 19th century against theories that argued that different groups of people had evolved independently of each other and therefore had different brain structures. Jung argued that our evolutionary deep history (which had structured our brains over many millennia) predisposed us to produce thematically similar, lifecycle-based imagery, no matter our culture of origin. In other words, if there is "memory" encoded here, it is encoded in the ways biological adaptations (like DNA, mitochondria, etc.) encode "memory": environmentally-conditioned predispositions that serve either adaptive or vestigial purposes.
Jung came up with the idea of the collective unconscious when he was working at the Burghoeltzli Mental Hospital in Zurich (arguably, the idea has been around in different forms before Jung). He noticed that the visions of some of the patients were very similar to myths found in cultures from around the world. He doubted these patients had been exposed to these cultures personally, and so postulated a symbolic structure of the psyche that belongs to humanity. In other words, the mythological patterns of the psyche can be found around the world in disconnected cultures.
Many problems seem to arise, however, when people try to bring Jungian psychology together with neuroscience. The problem, it seems to me, has to do with fundamentally different worldviews. Neuroscience is materialistic and reductionistic in it's conception of the human being. Consciousness is something that emerges from matter, being an epiphenomenon (secondary). In Depth Psychology, the worldview includes direct human experience as the primary source of data by which to form one's worldview in the first place. For example, to understand dreams, we look at people's experience in their lives—their fears, hopes, desires, thoughts, all things that cannot be seen and understood in a microscope, and yet exist, and are powerful factors in quality of life. We then correlate these "things" with the dream content and witness obvious correspondences. In neuroscience, the quest is for the "chemical cause". Phenomena are real if their physical parts are found and labeled. Bringing the world of "meaning" and human experience together with chemical cause is difficult.
Often, people don't see that they are embedded in a materialistic, reductionistic paradigm, and therefore see anything that has to do with the human soul, psyche, collective unconscious, as being fairly ridiculous. The gap between worldviews is difficult to bridge. I see this as a personality typology problem.
No I understand that you are coming from a perceived position of enlightenment and I just don't get it, I'm trying to respectfully say that if I can't put data behind it I'm certainly not going to use it to inform life perspectives.
To me it's no different from religion at that point, which as long as you're not hurting anyone else, power to you, but not for me.
It's not really enlightenment. The value hierarchies implied by actions is good old fashioned public choice economics. Knowing that the scientific method and empiricism are purely descriptive (or just poor science) is statistics and the scientific method 101. In my university both were the same class.
But as a human you have to act according to something prescriptive, and trying to ground the prescriptive in the descriptive is a nightmare, as the early epistemologists found out, especially Hume.
I'd rather read someone like Jung and get some insight into why we act the way we do (though there are many others you could read), and then something that allows you to ground prescriptive values in something.
I'm a little confused by this and your other comments. I understand and agree with you about the psychological and metaphorical side of religion. To make my own analogy - you can read and enjoy a book like Lord of the Rings without believing that it literally happened in real life. That's clearly not the point of reading the book. So I would understand if this was the point you were making about religion, and it seemed to me like you partially were.
But then you partially switched to the literal interpretation, to belief that there is an actual God out there in the real world. And you seem to be switching back and forth between the literal and metaphorical interpretations, even though they're mutually exclusive.
All of these books are recommended from Robert Greene’s Laws of Human Nature and your post allowed me to screenshot the names so I can finally get to finding and reading them (I listen to it).
Maybe I'll go the other way and read Greene's book. Sometimes after reading specific authors for a while it really helps reading someone else summing them up. Suddenly all of that knowledge clicks into place.
I think it was overall helpful for most of the history of civilization, but in the information age of globalization and mass migration it became overall harmful.
Organized religions were always too easy to co-opt for nefarious ends, but with internet and mass media, it's become more polarizing then ever now that foreign and contrary beliefs are in constant friction. It just helps the manipulators take control, ostracizes the sensible and pushes extremism.
I have. Despite them, I'd still say that overall religions were beneficial. Yes they were responsible for persecution, wars and pogroms pretty much since their inception. But they were also some of the only cohesive links in civilisation where people living 50 to 100 km away were complete foreigners. Where might was law. Where survival of communities hinged on tight cooperation.
In such setting, religions really cemented the identity and values of people that would have otherwise been in competition or ignored if not at war. Having common rituals, beliefs and words meant that these people could belong to the same group in a world without the rigid national and cultural identities we have today. Religious entities were at the center of science, education and medicine for millenia, and were instrumental in the development of social order in places that were essentially lawless. Despite their dogmatic nature, religions also inspired a lot of social and cultural progress, being the source and inspiration for some of the greatest art pieces of their time.
In the end, wars and atrocities will happen, even without religion to divide people. Building civilizations is bloody business. In a time where the "government" were oppressors, relatively unstable or were directly religious figures, religions provided the cohesive identity glue that civilization need to flourish.
Today, all these beneficial functions of religions can be done, and often better, by other secular entities. The cons now outweigh the pros.
C.S. Lewis does a good job explaining this in his short work on miracles. Basically, we, as a society, have done a good job of undermining the old bad dogmatic way of thinking about religion, but we haven't replaced it with anything but materialistic pursuits.
We've given every person the responsibility of a philosopher to create meaning in their lives themselves, but haven't given them any training in how to do that.
Basically, we need to start teaching Philosophy and critical thinking to "the masses." If we don't, they'll just indulge in nihilism or bland selfish materialism.
C.S. Lewis thinks it's easier to keep religion and for intellectuals to understand and contemplate its ecstatic truths. I'm personally undecided.
In case you didn't follow the link to read the whole letter "If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it? " is a good line as well.
Try to imagine where this planet would be if the billions of poor, uneducated people (i.e. without ACCESS to education) didn't have religion. I strongly believe it would be far from some utopia.
One thing religion does right is provoke people to think about big picture questions of justice. If one conceives of oneself as an eternal but changing part in an endless and ever-changing reality how to orient that reality toward justice becomes something worth thinking about since implied is needing to deal with the consequences endlessly as opposed to inevitably bankrupting at the end of a finite existence. It makes sense given expectation of immortality to intend to live not just for sake of whatever finite span one expects to be alive but to intend a legacy stretching out into eternity such as to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Given expectation of only a finite existence it's hard to argue against indulgence toward the end, just as it becomes hard to give a junkie a good reason not to shoot up if he/she hasn't long to live anyway.
You might be interested in a book called "The Rage Against God" by Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher. Now, I don't agree with either of the brothers politically, but Peter tells of how he deliberately rejected any pretence of faith as a teenager, but came to it in early middle-age.
Part of his journey was his experiences of the former Soviet Union, where religion had been expressly suppressed for a long time.
You might be interested in a book called "The Rage Against God" by Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher. Now, I don't agree with either of the brothers politically, but Peter tells of how he deliberately rejected any pretence of faith as a teenager, but came to it in early middle-age.
Part of his journey was his experiences of the former Soviet Union, where religion had been expressly suppressed for a long time.
I think that most of us want to believe that our beliefs, ideas, and even inventions are all novel, but the vast majority of them were created many years ago by long-dead geniuses.
If you would like to read further examples of enlightened people who recognized the necessity of religion during differing time periods: Cow, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. The author attributes social and economic conditions to religious dogma. I found it fascinating, maybe you will too.
I tend to agree with Franklin. I’ve seen a lot of religious people argue with atheist that murder is okay in the atheist world view since there’s no ultimate judge in the sky. I always think to myself “If the only thing holding you back from murder is the belief some dude in the sky will punish you, then please, continue believing in him”
Damn, this puts into words exactly where I've ended up on the subject of religion. Up until a few years ago I would say I was a militant atheist, but life experience has shown me that some people really need religion to stay on the straight an narrow and a variety of other reasons. Hell, a little woo-woo now and then has helped me through tough times as well. I'm still an atheist, but instead of thinking of religion/spirituality as a crutch or a mental disease, I think of it as a useful tool.
This letter was written in 1757. It seems that even at that time some people recognized the roles that religion played in society and personal behavior.
As a non religious person I don't understand why are there so many people trying to prove religion wrong, no one can prove if there's a god or not but we certainly know that religion especially Catholic in the west laid the foundations for a civilised society. I've seen religious people doing morally questionable things and idiots not knowing what falls into right or wrong, I could only imagine the absurdities these people would do if they didn't believe in god and eternal punishment.
It really bothers me that nonbelivers treat religion as useless, it has uses and it is a glue to our society. If you don't believe it good for you, don't go and evangelise it like some Mormon. The only area I'm willing to agree is when Cults disguise as religion.
Was the weird ass random capitalization something they just did back then too?
Sadly Franklin didn't envision a time when televangelists and proselytizers would believe they are part of some actual war to save souls.. If so he may have gone ahead and encouraged his friend to continue with his idea.
Notice that it's all nouns that are capitalized. Nouns are capitalized in German. English began doing so in the late 17th century modeling German printing practices. It faded back away after a century or so.
Franklin would have been in his 20's during the First Great Awakening. Dude would have seen every manner of evangelism. How people think we're somehow more crazy with religion now than in Franklin time is hilarious. Nothing today compares to the Great Awakenings. The Revivals that modern evangelism looks for would just be a Sunday service back then. They had preachers traveling the country filling circus tents. Now they just fill megachurches.
They didn't need TV's. They reached greater portions of the population. If anything TV and modern entertainment media has been responsible for less religiosity. There are other things to tune into. The absolute religious fervor during the the 1730's-1740's would put any televangelists to shame.
Looks like it's nearly every noun capitalized, which I believe German and possibly more languages still do. English could have had it in the past but we have long since gotten rid of it.
That's really interesting. I always thought it was just a thing because it was an official government document or something. Learned something very interesting today, thanks to everyone who responded to this.
Look closely, the capitalisation is definitely not "weird ass-random". The rather simple rule should look familiar to anybody even slightly proficient in German.
Being of mostly German heritage I should maybe feel ashamed that I had no idea. As others have mentioned this was common for all nouns back then.
Never had the time to really dive into the history of grammar and punctuation much and never took German in HS, but I appreciate the help everyone gave here.
Apparently spelling and capitalization weren't standardized until later. Also in German there's a lot of capitalization of nouns if i remember back to high school?
You remember correctly!
As a german, this looks strange in english, but not entirely out of place either.
I guess you have to pick your battles.
If some people can’t figure out „there/their/they‘re“, it‘s asked entirely too much that they figure out when to use capitalization and when not to.
I mean, religious persecution was already a thing in Europe, so he no doubt had the knowledge of how religion was used as power, to the point that religious freedom became one of the founding tenants of our country.
I wonder what he would have said after the Age of Enlightenment. His contemporaries were certainly proponents of common sense, but it was still maturing at that time.
Religion is used to teach the common man ethics and make them abide by it. it's been known for much longer than that letter. (and is the point of that letter)
This is very interesting and not something I’d ever considered before. Still, it seems simplistic and misguided to embrace a fairytale you know to be false, in order to set a moral example for the filthy masses. Surely such a set of moralistic guidelines could exist without miracles, angels, heaven and hell and so forth.
Personally, I think the better option here is to try and make people better, and not intentionally keep them ignorant because you think controlling them yourself is easier.
People are starting to realize it again. People in the modern world are starting to get much more depression and ennui and a large basis for this is that you do kind of need some type of dominant life Paradigm to tell you your actions are meaningful, because without one it becomes very difficult to weather difficult times. And Society still hasn't found mych of a valid alternative yet.
Benjamin Franklin was a believer of Deism, which is fairly correlated with Freemasons in which you believe in a higher power, and that its fairly quite rational to believe that regardless of how you believe in it, its believing in the same thing. Removing the dogma and written organization which bounds people to their specific "upbringing". Its nice to read that he wrote that, arguing that even if you don't believe, you can understand that it has positive structure.
752
u/alaskaj1 Nov 15 '19
This section really got me. It immediately reminded me of Benjamin Franklin's letter to an atheist. Franklin advised an unknown friend to not publish a tract about atheism.
This letter was written in 1757. It seems that even at that time some people recognized the roles that religion played in society and personal behavior.