Religion as a power system

[rousseau]

A while back I was posting about 'A History of Christianity' by Paul Johnson in the history forum. While reading that book I noticed that during the early centuries of Christianity religious leaders were essentially designing the church in a way that propped up its power and converted believers into the religion.

Now I'm going to go a little crazy here and talk about physics. If you input energy into a system it is going to become more organized. Now imagine that because religion is profitable for its leaders they are continually putting energy into it, changing it, and propping it up in a way that increases its global power. If you continue this process for over 2000 years you've eventually created an incredibly intricate and refined power system that is perfectly designed to dupe people.

And that's religion.

 

[Underseer]

It's much simpler than that.

Religions which are good at perpetuating and spreading themselves will necessarily infect more people than religions that aren't good at perpetuating and spreading themselves, hence Dawkins' concept of the meme.

Even if you went back in time and prevented the rise of Christianity, there would be some other religion doing more or less the same things (politically, anyway) today.

 

[rousseau]

It's much simpler than that.

Religions which are good at perpetuating and spreading themselves will necessarily infect more people than religions that aren't good at perpetuating and spreading themselves, hence Dawkins' concept of the meme.

Even if you went back in time and prevented the rise of Christianity, there would be some other religion doing more or less the same things (politically, anyway) today.

Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. The energy input that perpetuates the religion (organization) is doing so by contributing to the spread of itself via meme. So the reason why a particular religion would spread over others in the way you mention, is because those perpetuating it are doing a better job.

I guess you're saying that it's inevitable that a powerful religion would spread eventually, to which I agree, but I think the human tendency to organize systems for profit is the cause, the 'memetic spread' comes afterward.

 

[No Robots]

Isn't science a power system?

 

[rousseau]

Isn't science a power system?

Yes.

Religion's product is a fuzzy warm feeling. Science's product is knowledge and sometimes 'knowledge'.

 

[rousseau]

The distinction between the two is that religion advertises itself as a 'God mandated' organization, when it is clearly just analogous to a corporation. If the message and purpose is no longer profitable, the message and purpose change so they continue being profitable.

In science you get yourself in shit too, but it's mostly not pretending to be something that it's not.

 

[DBT]

Most organizations offer opportunities for power, wealth and position for those who feel a strong ambition for these things. If not a King or President, then a Pope, Bishop or Priest of God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe.....you can't top that, folks.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's much simpler than that.

Religions which are good at perpetuating and spreading themselves will necessarily infect more people than religions that aren't good at perpetuating and spreading themselves, hence Dawkins' concept of the meme.

Even if you went back in time and prevented the rise of Christianity, there would be some other religion doing more or less the same things (politically, anyway) today.

But religion existed long before Christianity, and very few religions were like Judaism/Christianity/Islam were/are. The big three are not only religions, but frameworks for society and control. Few of the ancient pagan religions were about control of sexuality, thought, dress and action. Such things were left up to the cultures.

So, there were already monotheistic, social construct religions around - Judaism and Zoroastrianism to name a couple - but they didn't have the might of the Roman empire behind them pushing their religion onto others and thus remained small, isolated or obscure regional religions.

It took a combination of a controlling, social framework, monotheistic, exclusivist proselytizing religion and military might to give us the cancers that are Christianity and Islam.

 

[steve_bnk]

Physics metaphors work.

Human organizations have 'inertia'.

A group reaches 'critical mass' when the group starts working and producing smoothly.

 

[rousseau]

Physics metaphors work.

Human organizations have 'inertia'.

A group reaches 'critical mass' when the group starts working and producing smoothly.

Physics metaphors work, although I don't know that this is so much a metaphor, but rather a physical law in motion.

 

[doubtingt]

Physics metaphors work.

Human organizations have 'inertia'.

A group reaches 'critical mass' when the group starts working and producing smoothly.

Physics metaphors work, although I don't know that this is so much a metaphor, but rather a physical law in motion.

It might not be a metaphor, but it only applies on a vague conceptual level and is insufficient to explain the difference between Christianity and Science.
Both have energy put into them for centuries, both have increased in "Power" vaguely and broadly defined, but how that energy was directed, toward what psychological goals have determined what the "power" does. Religious ideas and the epistemology of faith were explicitly designed for duping people to believe things that their reasoning minds and the knowledge that empirical experience gave them would not support. In science, the energy put into it has been directed towards recording observed facts and refining methodologies for collecting and analyzing those observations in a manner that would produce directional changes in ideas towards greater and greater accuracy and coherence with the world outside our beliefs. It central power is the power to advance knowledge and thus advance effectiveness of efforts to manipulate the physical world towards our goals. Some energy has also been directed toward building a social infrastructure that enables people to do science. That infrastructure can be used to advance the personal power of individuals who can then have power over what people believe, which could include duping them. This is somewhat independent of the power of science to advance knowledge even if and when few people choose to believe that knowledge because they being duped by religion.

 

[rousseau]

Physics metaphors work, although I don't know that this is so much a metaphor, but rather a physical law in motion.

It might not be a metaphor, but it only applies on a vague conceptual level and is insufficient to explain the difference between Christianity and Science.
Both have energy put into them for centuries, both have increased in "Power" vaguely and broadly defined, but how that energy was directed, toward what psychological goals have determined what the "power" does. Religious ideas and the epistemology of faith were explicitly designed for duping people to believe things that their reasoning minds and the knowledge that empirical experience gave them would not support. In science, the energy put into it has been directed towards recording observed facts and refining methodologies for collecting and analyzing those observations in a manner that would produce directional changes in ideas towards greater and greater accuracy and coherence with the world outside our beliefs. It central power is the power to advance knowledge and thus advance effectiveness of efforts to manipulate the physical world towards our goals. Some energy has also been directed toward building a social infrastructure that enables people to do science. That infrastructure can be used to advance the personal power of individuals who can then have power over what people believe, which could include duping them. This is somewhat independent of the power of science to advance knowledge even if and when few people choose to believe that knowledge because they being duped by religion.

When put into that context there is no difference between science and religion. Both are organizations that have been formed from energy input, the point being that energy input reduces entropy. You can take this idea and apply it civilization, or even life itself.

 

[doubtingt]

It might not be a metaphor, but it only applies on a vague conceptual level and is insufficient to explain the difference between Christianity and Science.
Both have energy put into them for centuries, both have increased in "Power" vaguely and broadly defined, but how that energy was directed, toward what psychological goals have determined what the "power" does. Religious ideas and the epistemology of faith were explicitly designed for duping people to believe things that their reasoning minds and the knowledge that empirical experience gave them would not support. In science, the energy put into it has been directed towards recording observed facts and refining methodologies for collecting and analyzing those observations in a manner that would produce directional changes in ideas towards greater and greater accuracy and coherence with the world outside our beliefs. It central power is the power to advance knowledge and thus advance effectiveness of efforts to manipulate the physical world towards our goals. Some energy has also been directed toward building a social infrastructure that enables people to do science. That infrastructure can be used to advance the personal power of individuals who can then have power over what people believe, which could include duping them. This is somewhat independent of the power of science to advance knowledge even if and when few people choose to believe that knowledge because they being duped by religion.

When put into that context there is no difference between science and religion. Both are organizations that have been formed from energy input, the point being that energy input reduces entropy. You can take this idea and apply it civilization, or even life itself.

Get reductionistic enough and there is no difference between anything in the universe and any other thing.
Any explanation that can't differentiate between science and religion is not much of an explanation at all, which is why physics is not the only science.

If you find your explanation satisfying, then you might as well just say "Everything comes down to physics", and tell all of science to pack up and go home.

 

[rousseau]

When put into that context there is no difference between science and religion. Both are organizations that have been formed from energy input, the point being that energy input reduces entropy. You can take this idea and apply it civilization, or even life itself.

Get reductionistic enough and there is no difference between anything in the universe and any other thing.
Any explanation that can't differentiate between science and religion is not much of an explanation at all, which is why physics is not the only science.

If you find your explanation satisfying, then you might as well just say "Everything comes down to physics", and tell all of science to pack up and go home.

I find it satisfying, but finding both a physical and social theory on religion satisfying can be done. The important thing is that you begin to understand the phenomena under different contexts. In this way if we were to, say, describe the social nuances of religion, they would be given more light by deeper 'parental' patterns. So it's not that you have a complete understanding of the phenomena, but rather an understanding of it at a different level.

 

[Under the Rose]

Our species is predominantly influenced by fear and desire. Which emotion is dominant depends upon the prevailing circumstances. Early religions seem to have had the desire to appease the fearful unknowns of the time. Any bright individuals would quickly determine the path to building upon and manipulating these concepts. As we have evolved, we have simply identified many more avenues for spinning the same formula to the advantage of those who are members of 'the group' whether the structure be predominantly religious, political, financial or special interest.

All entities, individual or collective, are motivated by self interest and want to expand their resources and influence. All such gains come at the expense of some others. Co-operation and collaboration is a useful strategy when it is uncertain if one can prevail through direct competition.

'Win-win' is a cute catch phrase but never take your eye off the ball...

 

[jonJ]

If you input energy into a system it is going to become more organized.

Not if the system is a functioning outhouse, and the energy comes from a stick of dynamite...

 

[rousseau]

Amazing when you think you're being profound, but actually just stating the obvious.

 

[fromderinside]

If you input energy into a system it is going to become more organized.

Not if the system is a functioning outhouse, and the energy comes from a stick of dynamite...

Well King, this case is closed.​

 

[Atheos]

The problem here is that we don't have any accurate portrayal of the early development of Christianity. We can be reasonably certain that the early development was not as described in 'Acts', where an explosion of conversions at the rate of thousands per day occurred in Jerusalem circa 33 A.D. Such a remarkable series of events would have left indelible traces in the historical record.

As has been demonstrated, simply putting energy into a system doesn't always result in a more organized system, just as simply tossing more money into a stock portfolio doesn't necessarily result in an effective retirement nest egg. The energy has to be directed with some sort of strategy or it could easily result in destroying the system.

If I had to hazard a guess as to Paul's strategy during the early development of Christianity, I'd probably say that his decision to appeal to class envy and fleece the poor was pretty huge. While many competitor religions of his era were working hard to entice the affluent of society into joining their ranks, Paul took what was left, which turned out to be quite considerable. It's not like he excused these poor folks from contributing to the coffers. The strategy worked well as a long-term investment because as more powerful and educated people began to see the advantages of being able to do the thinking for hundreds of poor people they began to join the movement as well.

An effective strategy, coupled with resources and an understanding of human psyche were all contributing factors in the early success of the christian movement.