3 ms·

Again, I don't think this is likely, but here's an angle to argue for the cover up. The US used to be a much more religious country that it is today. The exis

by drdec 6y ago

Again, I don't think this is likely, but here's an angle to argue for the cover up. The US used to be a much more religious country that it is today. The existence of aliens has a lot of implications for religion. It could be that when the cover up started, the people in power didn't want to deal with those implications and especially didn't want a lot of disaffected formerly religious people (don't forget that part of religion is control over the populace). So they covered it up. Once the cover up starts it has momentum and I can see it continuing past the time the original reason is relevant.

dbrueck 6y ago
Sorry to drift off topic, but this comes across as a wildly uninformed description of religion; a strawman.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  I disagree. The idea that organized religions exist primarily as a means of societal control is well-supported by even the most basic (let alone thorough) of examinations of world history and contemporary society.
  - dbrueck 6y ago
    Actually, the opposite is true: an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. It is certainly true that a lot of bad has been done in the name of religion*, and that there are some number of close-minded religious nutter types that make the news but relative to the totals these are both minorities. And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. * People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Government suppression of religious freedom/diversity has played a large role in this too. Edit: a few quick references out of many. Sociologists have long been aware of positive impacts of religion (e.g. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/ https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-lif...) for individuals and "local" societies, but even at the macroeconomic level there is strong evidence that religion has aided economic development, globalism, etc.: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11... https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-development https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-develo...
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. That is not mutually exclusive with the idea of organized religion being a tool of societal control. Sometimes that societal control happens to have good (or at least less bad) results. > And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. There's a reason why I'm specifying "organized" in "organized religion". The primary reason to organize a religion - rather than, say, allowing practitioners to autonomously determine for themselves their connection with the universe around them and how to interpret and reason about said connection - is precisely to constrain how practitioners reason about that connection. The very concepts of "blasphemy", "infidelity", "apostasy", "hereticism", etc. all strongly imply a desire for control. And given that the notion of a separation of church and state is pretty recent from a historical standpoint, it's pretty patently obvious where this leads for societies on local, regional, and national stages alike. That is: > People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Religion - particularly the organized variety - has historically played a large role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of societes. In the majority of those societies, said role was by government fiat. Consequently: > Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Right, but that doesn't change the reality that organized religion is such a tool, by design per its very nature of being organized.
- drdec 6y ago
  I had not intended my comment as an attack on religion nor was I making a value judgment about the net effect of religion on humanity. Nor did I intend to imply that exerting control over others is the total or even main point behind religion. Finally I wasn't trying to supply a complete description of religion, just referencing one facet of it.

by drdec 6y ago

dbrueck 6y ago

Sorry to drift off topic, but this comes across as a wildly uninformed description of religion; a strawman.

yellowapple 6y ago
I disagree. The idea that organized religions exist primarily as a means of societal control is well-supported by even the most basic (let alone thorough) of examinations of world history and contemporary society.
- dbrueck 6y ago
  Actually, the opposite is true: an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. It is certainly true that a lot of bad has been done in the name of religion*, and that there are some number of close-minded religious nutter types that make the news but relative to the totals these are both minorities. And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. * People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Government suppression of religious freedom/diversity has played a large role in this too. Edit: a few quick references out of many. Sociologists have long been aware of positive impacts of religion (e.g. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/ https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-lif...) for individuals and "local" societies, but even at the macroeconomic level there is strong evidence that religion has aided economic development, globalism, etc.: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11... https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-development https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-develo...
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > an objective examination of both world history and contemporary society produces a pretty favorable view towards religion in terms of net positive effects. That is not mutually exclusive with the idea of organized religion being a tool of societal control. Sometimes that societal control happens to have good (or at least less bad) results. > And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded. There's a reason why I'm specifying "organized" in "organized religion". The primary reason to organize a religion - rather than, say, allowing practitioners to autonomously determine for themselves their connection with the universe around them and how to interpret and reason about said connection - is precisely to constrain how practitioners reason about that connection. The very concepts of "blasphemy", "infidelity", "apostasy", "hereticism", etc. all strongly imply a desire for control. And given that the notion of a separation of church and state is pretty recent from a historical standpoint, it's pretty patently obvious where this leads for societies on local, regional, and national stages alike. That is: > People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Religion - particularly the organized variety - has historically played a large role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of societes. In the majority of those societies, said role was by government fiat. Consequently: > Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Right, but that doesn't change the reality that organized religion is such a tool, by design per its very nature of being organized.
drdec 6y ago
I had not intended my comment as an attack on religion nor was I making a value judgment about the net effect of religion on humanity. Nor did I intend to imply that exerting control over others is the total or even main point behind religion. Finally I wasn't trying to supply a complete description of religion, just referencing one facet of it.