What is Religion?

Religion is a social structure ingrained in the human psyche to give meaning to the believer’s life, and shape their sense of the world. “Spectators” of the religion worship other human beings, their achievements, and the groups to which they belong.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz defines religion as one of society’s cultural systems of communication. It is: 1) a system of symbols which acts to 2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by 3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and 4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that 5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

Common concepts relative to all religions include faith, devotion, worship, ritual, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, spirit, prayer, suffering, festival, and celebration.

Major, less obvious, religions include politics, environmentalism, business and capitalism, celebrity, art, health and medicine, music, sports, and science, among others.

Why do we consider so many seemingly-different things to be religions? Because they all pretty much follow the same rules upon careful analyses. "Religion", to us, is not something reserved for Christians, Buddhists, and the like. For us, it is a useful association rather than a negative one.

Logic in Science and Religion

Logic is the study of arguments, not the ultimate truth. There are many different arguments, each with its own kind of logic.

Most religions care little for science, and most sciences care litle for perception.

The difference between most sciences and most religions is that only science would fail its own test. If we know that we cannot perceive reality accurately and ignore that in all of our theories and accepted "facts" about reality then we have only progressed the usefulness of ignorance.

Science is based upon the (mistaken) premise that we can accurately perceive reality.

Although, at the same time, admits that we cannot perceive more than 99% of what exists.

[Caution: Pointing out such a faulty foundation in scientific thought may provoke a response similar to the irrational rage of someone who ignores science and may be even greater in scope, eloquence, and creativity.]

But seriously... Science takes itself too seriously, as if it is the only means by which useful answers can be found.

Science has enabled a world of understanding, discovery, and invention. But it cannot be assumed that science built from a different premise would not be even more advanced.
Just because something works well in one sense does not mean that it is that which works best. We can ignore these fundamentally more advanced ways and instead to try evolve the same ways we are comfortable with. But that would be an advanced ignorance.

We do not, of course, see a problem with a science that is reasonable. But why many scientists in this world are pushing further and further away from other systems of logic (such as a religion) is strange for a system built on magic. Science and religion are both useful and serve purposes, and are both part of systems of logic that only seem to provide the ultimate answers we're looking for.

We see many sciences becoming even more divorced from the needs of people in future. We believe increasing narcissism to be a dangerous and unsustainable path.

The Error of Evolution

Scientists who believe in evolution are perhaps no different than the non-scientists who believe in a heavenly creator. To say that humans evolved because of natural selection is to ignore the dramatic changes that our own tools have made to our biological species. We were rarely the most adapted to our environment. Most often, we were one of the weakest and least-adapted. But our technologies have made us stronger and have changed the dynamics of our survival.

Our evolution is artificial, not natural. Humans cannot survive without tools.

Our biological changes have been mostly brought about by artificial means as a result of using a wide variety tools and technologies, not because of natural selection, mother nature, or a randomness that doesn't really exist, as if a Gliding Spaghetti Daemon was personally selecting our species and we are the pinnacle of natural achievement. For example, the mere act of communcating (itself a technology) has changed the human body as much as, if not more than, extremes in climate.

Our intelligence has not evolved naturally but through the use of tools and technologies. Only a very small part of our brain is naturally intelligent. That's the part connected to the human who would not have survived if she had not surrounded herself with artificial things, becoming "artificial" in the process of hundreds of thousands of years.

Our intelligence is artificial, not natural.

We cannot be aware of something directly. Consciousness has yet to be properly defined because it simply fits no definition. It does not exist. We are not conscious beings. We are beings who explore "geometrical relationships" and add narrative to them. We've never not known this process, so it's difficult to see how a particular relationship can be perceived as watching television, for example.

We are artifically intelligent beings that have evolved as a result of artificial selection. Technology has removed most of the selection pressure on naturally "fit" attributes.

We have, in effect, created ourselves. We were not created by Mother Nature, randomness, or the gods of other religions.

It used to be said that the Earth was at the center of the universe. However, it is still said that modern humans are the most advanced species. Is there much of a difference between the two faulty assumptions?

Atheism and Choice

Of some interest at this time is how like traditional religions atheism is becoming in the West. To atheists we ask a few hypothetical questions:

If you had a child would you tell the child what to believe, or let the child figure it out for him or herself?

Would you allow the child to choose their own personal belief, or tell them what to believe?

If you would tell them what to believe, how is that any different than other parents enforcing their belief on their children and thus continuing the same cycle that you presume to dislike?

If you would allow them their own choice, why not do the same for your fellow human beings and not convince them of otherwise?

How is it that you may allow a child to believe in a supernatural being who delivers toys on a single day of the year but not allow an adult their belief which benefits them personally every single day?

If we are too focused on being "right" (or at least an opinion of it) rather than being considerate of others then that would be like forcing someone to use something because we think it's better for them.

What value is fact if we are so against the different types of thinking that allowed us to evolve? Perhaps "fact" is more of a belief rather than something absolute because it is dependent on perception. Facts can change, as can perceptions.

We cannot perceive reality accurately, so it's ridiculous to claim that one perception is more valid than another.

The question should be, "How useful is it to those who believe in it?"