In "Lies We Tell Kids" (http://paulgraham.com/lies.html, 2008) Paul Graham argues that religions are a combination of 'bizarre lies' and 'useful things/advice': "The bizarre half is what makes the religion stick, and the useful half is the payload".
The example given of 'bizarre customs' are innocuous (snapping your fingers before eating fish) and of the 'useful half' desirable (being honest and industrious).
This view sounds wrong. First, it seems to present religion as a mostly good thing, that simply rests on "tricks", but which is having a positive effect on the world. That view doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
But secondly, and much more importantly, it supposes religions were fabricated, on conscious purpose, as this curious mix of sticky lies and good payload, in order to help the payload spread. A conscious and benevolent maker made religion? Santa Claus invented Santa Claus!
Religion is either the work of God (if you're a believer) or it doesn't have any purpose or meaning; it can't be a thing built on purpose with clever tricks in order to benefit the world, while at the same time being independent from deity.
That's why "religion as a virus" (4th video) is such an attractive and fascinating hypothesis.
Religion is the work of natural selection of ideas. Religions that survive are the ones that are effective at surviving. It doesn't matter if they harm (or even kill) their host, what matters is that they spread to another host before killing the first one. Some religions are "good" and some are "bad" but it doesn't matter; their goodness or badness is absolutely orthogonal to their success.
4 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 21.4 ms ] threadThe example given of 'bizarre customs' are innocuous (snapping your fingers before eating fish) and of the 'useful half' desirable (being honest and industrious).
This view sounds wrong. First, it seems to present religion as a mostly good thing, that simply rests on "tricks", but which is having a positive effect on the world. That view doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
But secondly, and much more importantly, it supposes religions were fabricated, on conscious purpose, as this curious mix of sticky lies and good payload, in order to help the payload spread. A conscious and benevolent maker made religion? Santa Claus invented Santa Claus!
Religion is either the work of God (if you're a believer) or it doesn't have any purpose or meaning; it can't be a thing built on purpose with clever tricks in order to benefit the world, while at the same time being independent from deity.
That's why "religion as a virus" (4th video) is such an attractive and fascinating hypothesis.
Religion is the work of natural selection of ideas. Religions that survive are the ones that are effective at surviving. It doesn't matter if they harm (or even kill) their host, what matters is that they spread to another host before killing the first one. Some religions are "good" and some are "bad" but it doesn't matter; their goodness or badness is absolutely orthogonal to their success.
I think it would be more accurate to describe these for what they are: advertisements for the open university (and imo, poor ones at that).