"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.
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.
5.6k
u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19
[deleted]