14 ms·

Religion as an Ego-modulator

114 points by superb-owl 4y ago

patientplatypus 4y ago
m348e912 4y ago
I think this applies to spirituality as a whole and not just religion. I have also heard experiences with ayahuasca and DMT also result in a reduction of ego and a realization that you're one piece of a vast connected consciousness.
- omgrusrs 4y ago
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Absolutely! Not surprising that Huxley also wrote one of the great psychedelic classics.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Collective Consciousness is a New Age idea however, and that line of thinking is rejected by many religions ironically.
omgrusrs 4y ago
thriftwy 4y ago
The problem is that dominant religions need an ego check as well. No, you are not going to explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners. Just stick to the matters on the inside, please.
- eru 4y ago
  My own tastes might very well agree with yours, but if other people want their religion to dictate what food they can eat and what clothes they can wear etc, why should that bother me?
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    I can see a lot of that stuff recently, people just deny the obvious religious nature of such practices. However, such religion can no longer be universal, since for most people habits are not defined through religion anymore.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    It shouldn't bother you at first, but what they can eat and what they can wear quickly turns into what you're allowed to eat and wear in certain religions.
  - yoyohello13 4y ago
    The problem comes when they try to impose those things on other people.
    - eru 4y ago
      Yes, but that's a different thing to complain about than 'explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners.'
    - _9hey 4y ago
      All law comes from belief in some underlying value to be pursued. For every issue, there is coupled with it the issue of individual choice on that issue. Some issues have higher value than individual choice on that issue. What you’re annoyed with is how others prioritize which issues outweigh their coupled choice issue. But would you take away their choice to prioritize value in that way? There are two modes of operation: for society to strive for objective truth together to reach a consensus congruent with reality, or to arbitrarily reach consensus and occasionally face the consequences of our idiosyncrasies. The objective truth we must strive for is fundamental moral law. It is to that one must appeal, lest their opinion lead us to bear the consequences of their ineptitude. We can give this fundamental moral law any name we want, but I’ll call it “God’s opinion” because it would take God to know all the ins and outs of it. Now, are you expressing annoyance because others contradict your opinion or God’s? How would you or others know the right opinion to have, which aligns with fundamental moral law?
kosyblysk666 4y ago
diego_moita 4y ago
The problem with this argumentation is that everyone has actually a different purpose for religion. In fact, the most common use of religion is fraud and manipulation, from tele-evangelism and Brazilian IURD to the American religious right, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro and Tecep Erdogan.
- realce 4y ago
  Mass-scale modulation of egos is super-duper helpful for making sure lots of people serve and worship your non-modulated ego IME.
- oblak 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be less effort to list all the cases where religion is not used for manipulation and gain? That said. Strictly speaking, isn't everything we do, including all communication, an attempt to manipulate the world? Malice or not.
acjohnson55 4y ago
I agree. Like many people, I draw a distinction between religion (read: organized religion) and spirituality. From what I can see, religion can have the effect of hardening the ego, by creating an us-vs-them mindset. As an American, I see this as perhaps the fundamental dynamic driving our country at a national level, both in domestic politics and foreign policy. On a personal level, I was raised in a very religious household. In our particular fundamentalist Baptist church, there were strains of ego minimization, in the sense of subordinating the individual to the identity and outlook of the group. But within that identity, I saw ego maximization, in the sense of the feelings of superiority of our creed. As I became alienated from organized Christianity and its dogma, I've found that I am thankful for many of the ego minimizing aspects. And now, as a parent, I'm interested in the ways in which I can raise my children to have these benefits, without all the harms I experienced and see from organized religion. Incidentally, I just read all of the books from Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception, The Anatomy of Peace, and The Outward Mindset. The Arbinger Institute was founded by Latter-Day Saints folks, and while I definitely register the vibes of Christian thought, they are fundamentally secular books, devoid of dogma. I do think it's very possible to draw from the more positive, ego-dissolving parts of religious spirituality and teaching, while rejecting the divisive parts. Completely aside from the ego conversation, another thing I have noticed about raising kids outside of a church is that my family lacks the same community that the Baptist church my household growing up attended. I think this is one of the major functions of organized religion. Provided you can remain in good standing with the church, you get a community, which serves all sorts of useful functions. Outside of a church, you have to manually find this, through friendships and other organizations. But there's big replacement cost to everything a church community gives you "batteries included". I'm very pro secular society, but I don't think we've come up with great answers to this problem, leading to potentially catastrophic levels of social fragmentation and susceptibility to cult-like online movements.
- xisthesqrtof9 4y ago
  I also grew up in a very strict Muslim household and this is very close to where I see religion’s place in the future of my (potential) family. A couple of questions that have been in my mind, that id like to ask. How do you choose which parts to share with your kids and which ones to omit? Have you found a community that your family can use to replace the church? For me I’d think they would be people from my back home, as a visible minority that’s quite easy but I do feel that if you don’t follow the religion entirely, you’d get judged and ostracized.
verisimi 4y ago
What is religion anyway? Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so. If so, aren't many systems arguably capable of being called religious? What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I think that science can be considered as a religion to most, as, in general, people don't verify information or what they are told. Instead they just believe it is true and trust that it has been verified. I really don't see much difference.
- freeflight 4y ago
  > Could you say that any system of thought, where believe rather than know, is a religion? I think so. This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
- zen_1 4y ago
  > What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so. Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?
- jesuscript 4y ago
  Religion is the only thing devoid of objective evidence. While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society. That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks. The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection. We are better than you is a potent drug.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jesuscript 4y ago
It depends. It can also be a ego foundation, similar to virtue signaling. Anecdotally, I’ve seen plenty of people establish themselves as morally superior to others. It’s no different than militant vegans, ultra left progressives, ultra right conservatives, the list is endless. It’s a mixed bag with religion. The non-red flags to look for is acceptance and a surrender to providence and nature. Everything else is fertilizer for the ego industrial complex.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  > the ego industrial complex Did you come up with this term? I might have to steal it ;)
thenerdhead 4y ago
There's a few common practices across religions, spirituality, and philosophies. Surrendering/forgiveness, constant reflection on death, and separation of the self tend to come to mind. Most religions instill these ideas/virtues which may "modulate" the ego. For devout practitioners, they tend to live by these virtues and actually "reduce" the ego to near extinction. The question is, do people naturally come across these ideas without religion/spirituality/etc? I was raised non-religious and didn't come across many of these ideas until my late 20s when I started to read again. Most of that came from reading religious/spiritual types of texts.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  The "Perennial Philosophy" school of thought [1] says that people rediscover these ideas over and over again. It takes a particularly prophetic individual to stumble over them de novo, but once the idea takes root it spreads quickly. There's a great quote from William James on the cycle of religious discovery, diaspora, corruption, and rediscovery, but I can't find it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
  - thenerdhead 4y ago
    Not sure if this is the one you're talking about, but it rang a bell. I saw it in a Tony Robbins book most recently and then repeated in a book about TV addiction. “First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.” - William James "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
    - superb-owl 4y ago
      No but this one is even better!
blueflow 4y ago
I think this post is a example of "That it makes sense in your head doesn't mean the universe works like that". I mean, yeah, you can frame/conceptualize it like that, but i have doubt its useful or falsifiable.
- tgv 4y ago
  Even then, a phrase like this "people take their metaphysical beliefs seriously, and use them to guide their behavior" is so terribly unempirical, and completely undefined, starting with the weird description of "ego". That said, in the most trivial sense, religion does alter your behavior. The rest is the kind of reasoning that gives philosophy a bad name.
stevenfoster 4y ago
As summarized by Jesus of Nazareth: the greatest commandment is Love your God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself. I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system. After all the summarizer is claiming to be close with the creator. Something worth considering. So if our code is we will be consumed whatever we choose to be our god (science, religion, ourselves...) we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves. The most consistently kind, life giving people I have ever encountered are treating others the way they treat themselves. The people who I've been abused by, with hindsight can see they were harming me the way the harm themselves. This is critical for our own self diagnostics, alignment, and ultimately how we build healthy civilization. I would invite anyone reading this to use science to rigorously form, and reform questions. Science is a lousy religion in my opinion, however I have found rediscovering my own heritage through the Spanish Mystics, science applied to religion or perhaps better referred to as ones on personal faith has unlocked a peace within my own inner development and facing universe spanning unknowns. I hope this note finds you well.
- thenerdhead 4y ago
  There is also a book called "Predictably Irrational" that talks about a fun experiment where people could choose to cheat without being caught when reciting the ten commandments. They found that recalling the ten commandments or even an "honesty policy" before a test would reduce cheating/lying significantly. So why does recalling the Ten Commandments reduce our tendency to lie, even when we couldn't possibly be caught?
- nico 4y ago
  > Love your neighbor as yourself. Sometimes I wonder about the original intention and meaning of this expression I’ve come to believe that maybe Jesus meant it as: “Love yourself as your neighbor” Meaning: unless you love and accept yourself, it’s going to be hard to love others as well.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    I always thought it was a lead in to expanding your tribe. If you love your neighbor as yourself they become friends and maybe family. Group animosity and violence is much less likely if we are in the same tribe. With globalization we are all neighbors in some sense.
nordsieck 4y ago
I think this may partially be a case of mis-diagnosis. As someone who was raised in Christianity, and who later participated in the US Army and social dance, I think that a big part of ego modulation is: * Synchronized activities - especially physical movement * Shared suffering * Shared effort towards a common goal It just so happens[1] that most religions use both techniques heavily. Christian services typically involve the congregation speaking and singing in unison for an hour at a time. There is also a notion of universal suffering that is built into Christianity, that is typically emphasized through cultural activities and sermons. A big thing within Christianity is practical expressions. We used to host a men's shelter, did a variety of charity work, and supported missionaries. I've also done a buddhist meditation retreat. Everyone sat and meditated for an hour+ at a time, several times per day. I'm on the fence if that meets the criterion of "synchronized activities", since all of the action is entirely mental, but it definitely qualifies as "shared suffering". Same with not being able to speak for a week. And there was pretty strong encouragement to donate at the end, as well as participate in weekly "sits". Social dance is almost entirely "synchronized activity". And it leads to a very intimate, trusting community. Sort of. Depending on the dance, dancing through the night and being part of the "breakfast club" is also a right of passage for some, which, along with beat up feet, is a sort of "shared suffering". The military is pretty big on this stuff as well. Everyone thinks of basic training, but the experience is constantly repeated (although to a lesser level of discomfort) through training exercises. And marching is heavily emphasized during basic - not for any combat effectiveness reason - but because of its ability to engender trust and cohesion. I'm sure there's probably some mystery sauce in religion that I'm missing, but I think a lot of it is down to those 3 factors. --- 1. Maybe it's on purpose. Maybe it's convergent evolution. Heck - maybe it's divine will. I don't really care about the cause here.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Yes, you make some great points here. Synchronized physical movement is much more important than most people realize. There are cults that rely on it heavily. I hope to write some more on this in the future.
brundolf 4y ago
This felt really on point until the end: > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) I nearly laughed out loud. Academia is notorious for having toxic, hierarchical dynamics. I'm not sure if the author is really unaware, or if they're blinded by wanting to form a science > religion narrative, but this last part seriously undercut what was otherwise a great article. But yes- growing up southern baptist in Dallas, the thesis strongly resonates with my experience. You'd see powerful business-men who should have had outsized egos being genuinely humbled by their beliefs. Those beliefs had a lot of flaws - I left them behind for a reason - but there was something unique and valuable about the way they cut through egos.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Is that unique to scientific academia though or a problem with academia itself?
  - brundolf 4y ago
    I don't think it's unique to scientific academia, but it felt like they were suggesting the scientific community is immune to these kinds of problems
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as). > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) "at least no more than in other professions" is the key. > Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs > Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk. > But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion. That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.
tombh 4y ago
My degree is in Religious Studies (which I actually think has been more useful to me in my software career than CS). I don't know who the author of the article is, or what the overall theme of the website is, all I can see is that it's an email newsletter? On the one hand I like that William James is mentioned, he's one of the fathers, some even consider him the father, of Religious Studies. The Varieties Of Religious Experience was the first serious academic attempt to _describe_ this extraordinary human aspect that we call, not for want of a better term, Religion. What had tended to happen up till then, and indeed what continues to happen, is that academia tries to _explain_ Religion. Religious Studies isn't fundamentally opposed to explaining its subject matter per se. But rather it is more fundamentally concerned with, well, _studying_ Religion. Which of course does mean at least being open to theories, such as the ego one in the article, but ultimately it's primary concern is more to create a dedicated space in which Religion can _present its case on its own terms_. Humanity _needs_ Religious Studies, just because Religion is Seriously Fucked Up™, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve serious academic attention, quite the opposite. So, on the other hand I'm a little hesitant about this article, because it is both invoking Religious Studies and trying to explain Religion in the same breath. I actually like the ego-control theory, I have no bones with that. And we were certainly not discouraged from coming up with our own theories at university. But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. Like I said, that does not at all mean that Religious Studios wouldn't welcome an overarching Grand Unified Theory of Religion, it's just to say that, if you learn anything about Religious Studies today, it's that a GUT is way, way down the list of Religious Studies' priorities.
- golemotron 4y ago
  > But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. And that's the religion of academia (I don't mean that pejoratively).
- v-erne 4y ago
_9hey 4y ago
The Soviet Union was an extremist sect of scientism: they killed millions of people for not converting.
labrador 4y ago
I like to think of a helpful ego and an unhelpful ego. My helpful ego allows me to function in society with others to get my needs met and help the community I am part of be successful. My ego in this case is my interface to the world and this "personality" is how people know me. I know I am more than this and there is a mysterious self behind this mask that I'm trying to understand. I think the unhelpful ego is thinking I know things without evidence through faith and belief. Then judging others on how closely they align with my beliefs. My unhelpful ego sets me apart from others and sometimes causes me to circle the wagons with like minded people in opposition to others. Life is a competition for survival, so even this ego is helpful in some circumstances, but is often problematic and starts wars, murders, lawsuits and other hostilities. I don't know what happens after I die. I don't know where loved ones who passed went. I don't know why I was born or what I'm supposed to do here. I don't know that if I wire up enough transistors that my machine will become spontaneously conscious. I don't know that God exists or has a plan for me. I don't know if I am an individual with free will who acts independently from others. I don't know if I am living in a simulation. The list of things I don't know is immense. When I start pretending I know things is when I start getting in trouble.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_9hey 4y ago
Given that ego minimization comes from viewing oneself with respect to a broader group/context, what is the effect of isolating one’s identity from the group/context? Wouldn’t it have the opposite effect? If someone is constantly being told how different they are from people in a group, they are less likely to closely identify with the group. Or with any single group. The end effect is that everyone becomes isolated, purposeless, and egotistical. Obsessing over intersectionality achieves this purpose flawlessly. One can slice a loaf of bread only so many times before all that’s left are crumbs.
svat 4y ago
While its main point is interesting to think about, this article still has a view of "religion" that is (despite token mentions of Buddhism and, via perennial philosophy, Hinduism) very influenced by Abrahamic (monotheistic) conceptions: especially in putting beliefs/faith as central: > One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic. Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.) For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Some great points on the other aspects of religion! I specifically focused on metaphysical belief here, because that's one of the few things that separates religious communities from other communities. E.g. (as another poster pointed out) the military has many of the religious aspects you mentioned above. I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception. Both have intricate pantheons and a wealth of mythology. Zen Buddhism is probably the only exception here.
  - svat 4y ago
    As someone who grew up with the intricate pantheons and mythology (and is continuing to learn and pass them on), I am familiar with them. :-) The distinction I'm making is not about whether belief is an aspect or not (it is), but about how central it is. We may just have to disagree about what the Western misconception is :) and it's not central (ha) to your thesis anyway, but let me put it another way. With monotheism came the distinction between "true" and "false" doctrine/religion, and as a result, these religions (and especially Christianity, probably because of its early history against the backdrop of Roman religion) is uniquely concerned with what is "true": putting belief/faith as central. This strongly influences the Western idea of religion (and also the idea of separating religious from non-religious) as a whole. As contrast, consider the examples from Japan above, and this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsofhh.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/german-christian-in-dialogue-with-balinese-on-ramayanas-historicity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsof... (from https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 )
photochemsyn 4y ago
Having a strong ego is not necessarily a wholly bad characteristic, as long as people are (1) capable of turning it off and (2) know when to turn it off. One likely advantage throughout human history is that those with strong egos are more likely to survive extremely difficult challenges - they might keep going when others lay down to die. If this concept of ego is expanded to an entire society, then a shared sense of identity is also a kind of 'community ego' which leads to social cohesiveness, the willingness to help other members of the group with their problems, leading to overall group success. This is often called the utilitarian argument for religious faith (but not for multicultural mixed religion, which is said to cause schisms in the group). In evolutionary terms, this might be called 'group selection'- although many religious people don't like to talk about evolution. For some reason, common heredity with 'the lower animals' upsets them deeply - a concept I've never been able to understand myself. This is't true of all religions of course, it seems more a hallmark of the Abrahamic traditions (Judeo-Christian-Islamic). I guess it's really about replacement of religious authority with scientific authority when it comes to origin stories, genesis, etc.? Where the inability to turn off the ego causes problems is in social interactions. Every academic department, for example, tends to have at least a few narcissitic Napoleon types who view every interaction with others as a winner/loser competition, in which one party is dominant and the other submissive (rather like chimpanzees really). If they don't come out on top, they show 'wounded ego' syndrome, which requires future retaliation of some sort against the other party to restore their dominant position. Generally such people are described as 'a real piece of work' and everyone dreads interacting with them. Typically they try to control and abuse their staff and students as well (look up UC Berkeley professor abuse scandal for about half a dozen recent examples). Incidentally, this academic phenomenon shows that 'Scientism' isn't any better than 'Religionism' at moderating the negative aspects of ego. It seems to be something some people learn how to do, and others don't. There don't seem to be any guaranteed routes to learning this either - some people say prayer and meditation, some people say psychedelic drugs, some people say extreme physical exercise. I often wonder if it's actually somewhat genetic in nature, a sort of narcissistic gene issue, perhaps an inability to feel empathy for others? Go figure.
bikamonki 4y ago
I stopped reading when I read Stoics listed next to Christians.
scotty79 4y ago
I have a different idea. For me religion looks like ego detachment device that lets you detach your ego from actual social reality of moral interactions with real people and redirect it inward. While living in physical reality we must interact with other people. But since there's a huge variety of people that may have varying moralities and concepts of what's good and bad, what's a favor and what's an offence and what's both it can be really hard to think about dealing with people. Religion makes things easier by substituting all the real people with all their specific peculiarities with virtual entity and excuses you from real moral interactions if you interact with that entity instead. Offence is no longer offence against your neighbor. Now it's offence against God (or karma or whatever) first and it becomes less relevant if your neighbor really perceives your action to be offensive or not or what kind of amendment he requires. When you are religious you need only to concern yourself with how you offended this virtual entity and what amendments are required for that entity which information religion helpfully provides on demand through priests and writings. This vastly simplifies things and was probably necessary step in development of human race as we switched away from small villages where you could remember what's offensive to whom and who appreciates what and started to live in larger settlements where caring about actual morality towards unique people would be too much work. Religions usually provide also ready made fake communities based not on interpersonal moral interactions, like natural communities, but on sharing interactions with this virtual entity. It also provides you with substitute devices so you can still feel the same feelings that were in smaller populations provided by real moral interactions. For example instead of actually helping someone, you might just pray for him and still feel a lot of the same feelings that come from successfully helping which would require putting in work in getting to know that person, their actual needs and what they consider a favor. This virtualization of morality wasn't a great solution though because it robbed people of authenticity of large part of their moral interactions and of their accuracy and adequacy. Now when we move to highly connected societies where we can survive in very large and dense population centers completely anonymously choosing our own small circle of other humans to interact with, to depend on, with our emotional, financial and physical security, we can finally get back to more authentic and varied moral interactions that we as a species have evolved the capacity for. It's one of the reasons, I think, why religion looses ground in recent decades. One of its key functions is no longer needed by most people.
dragontamer 4y ago
> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. Is it? In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and pharisees. While the one with arguably the smallest ego was the good Samaritan. There's no real evidence that religious people (even by religious teachings) are immune to the issues of selfish, self-centered thinking. ------- I say ego is independent. Religion doesn't affect it really. An ego-centric individual could be drawn into Religion for selfish reasons (ex: purely for the hope to get into Heaven without thinking about others), for example. There are certainly teachings within the religion about society and working together, etc. etc. But I don't think people necessarily follow those unless they were already predisposed into thinking about other people. I would argue that any religious scholar (at least, of Christianity), would point out that the Bible has numerous examples and stories to remind us that "Religionism isn't good by itself". There are plenty of priests and holy people throughout the ages who have failed to live up to the ideals of the religion. Ex: Moses's brother Aaron worshiped the golden calf with the rest of the Isrealites. Jesus was betrayed by an Apostle named Judas. The scribes / pharisees were some of the hardest set against Jesus, forcing Jesus to preach to non-believers (ie: Gentiles)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- comfypotato 4y ago
  I interpret this line such that this instance of “religious mind” is associated with the directly aforementioned “saintly character”. That is to say that your examples of Aaron, the scribes, Pharisees, etc. were definitely not “saintly characters”. Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait. Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Aaron was literally God's hand chosen spokesman for Moses, the #2 Priest after Moses. Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was. ------ I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known. ------- King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well. The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.
simplify 4y ago
This theory is only half true. Any power structure allows abuse to happen. Business, politics, universities, kingdoms, celebrities... there's nothing about religion distinct in this regard, other than religion is more widespread. Any social structure known to man will be susceptible to abuse. What does make religion unique, as the article also states, is that it prescribes conquering the ego as one of its primary goals. The more of this we can get in the world, the better.
- yibg 4y ago
  One difference with religion is it requires some level of suspension of critical thinking and you have to take many things on "faith". This seems like a great way to dodge accountability and hand wave away things without being questioned too much.
  - pastorhudson 4y ago
    I think every discipline requires some suspension of critical thinking. When I’m writing software I might start with a “faith” I can solve a problem I may not fully understand. I will come to understand the things I don’t currently understand when the time comes to implement them. I trust google or stack overflow will have my back! Theology and Philosophy are full of critical thinking. And I’m not sure you can find any success in religious practice without it.
    - yibg 4y ago
      But with say software, you can verify yourself if you wanted to whether something is true or not. And if you can find sufficient evidence that something isn't true it'll get corrected. With religion you're expected to believe many things without evidence. And often times in the face of evidence against the thing.
      - simplify 4y ago
        The anti-religious love to harp on the whole evidence thing, but in real life you almost never make decisions based on evidence. Instead, you base them on experiences – whether based your own or other people's. Here's a basic example: What's the evidence that Donald Trump was (or spicier, isn't) president? How do you verify this fact? Is it not simply faith in our system and word of mouth?
kang 4y ago
Religion is more of an attention modulator
evelynsalt 4y ago
How does this explain the existence of televangelists, megachurch pastors, church ladies, gurus, generally abusive people in religion?
helf 4y ago
The amount of seemingly pro-religious chatter in here is really surprising to me. I grew up in essentially a cultish variation of southern Baptist and have extensive experience with other denominations of “Christianity” and there is no way in fucking hell I would ever say a damn positive thing about the social clubs that are 99% of churches. Religion is almost entirely about control. The current state of this country is due to the evangelical movement and all the bullshit that has come with it. American “religion” and its followers can rot.
agumonkey 4y ago
Society too. Without people nothing stops me from dwindling in my own paranoia or mania. Being with others brings alternative point of views (too much these days) and help me breaks the DFS aspect of thinking.

114 points by superb-owl 4y ago

I think this applies to spirituality as a whole and not just religion. I have also heard experiences with ayahuasca and DMT also result in a reduction of ego and a realization that you're one piece of a vast connected consciousness.

omgrusrs 4y ago
superb-owl 4y ago
Absolutely! Not surprising that Huxley also wrote one of the great psychedelic classics.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
Collective Consciousness is a New Age idea however, and that line of thinking is rejected by many religions ironically.

omgrusrs 4y ago

thriftwy 4y ago

The problem is that dominant religions need an ego check as well. No, you are not going to explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners. Just stick to the matters on the inside, please.

eru 4y ago
My own tastes might very well agree with yours, but if other people want their religion to dictate what food they can eat and what clothes they can wear etc, why should that bother me?
- thriftwy 4y ago
  I can see a lot of that stuff recently, people just deny the obvious religious nature of such practices. However, such religion can no longer be universal, since for most people habits are not defined through religion anymore.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  It shouldn't bother you at first, but what they can eat and what they can wear quickly turns into what you're allowed to eat and wear in certain religions.
- yoyohello13 4y ago
  The problem comes when they try to impose those things on other people.
  - eru 4y ago
    Yes, but that's a different thing to complain about than 'explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners.'
  - _9hey 4y ago
    All law comes from belief in some underlying value to be pursued. For every issue, there is coupled with it the issue of individual choice on that issue. Some issues have higher value than individual choice on that issue. What you’re annoyed with is how others prioritize which issues outweigh their coupled choice issue. But would you take away their choice to prioritize value in that way? There are two modes of operation: for society to strive for objective truth together to reach a consensus congruent with reality, or to arbitrarily reach consensus and occasionally face the consequences of our idiosyncrasies. The objective truth we must strive for is fundamental moral law. It is to that one must appeal, lest their opinion lead us to bear the consequences of their ineptitude. We can give this fundamental moral law any name we want, but I’ll call it “God’s opinion” because it would take God to know all the ins and outs of it. Now, are you expressing annoyance because others contradict your opinion or God’s? How would you or others know the right opinion to have, which aligns with fundamental moral law?

kosyblysk666 4y ago

diego_moita 4y ago

The problem with this argumentation is that everyone has actually a different purpose for religion. In fact, the most common use of religion is fraud and manipulation, from tele-evangelism and Brazilian IURD to the American religious right, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro and Tecep Erdogan.

realce 4y ago
Mass-scale modulation of egos is super-duper helpful for making sure lots of people serve and worship your non-modulated ego IME.
oblak 4y ago
Wouldn't it be less effort to list all the cases where religion is not used for manipulation and gain? That said. Strictly speaking, isn't everything we do, including all communication, an attempt to manipulate the world? Malice or not.

acjohnson55 4y ago

I agree. Like many people, I draw a distinction between religion (read: organized religion) and spirituality. From what I can see, religion can have the effect of hardening the ego, by creating an us-vs-them mindset. As an American, I see this as perhaps the fundamental dynamic driving our country at a national level, both in domestic politics and foreign policy. On a personal level, I was raised in a very religious household. In our particular fundamentalist Baptist church, there were strains of ego minimization, in the sense of subordinating the individual to the identity and outlook of the group. But within that identity, I saw ego maximization, in the sense of the feelings of superiority of our creed. As I became alienated from organized Christianity and its dogma, I've found that I am thankful for many of the ego minimizing aspects. And now, as a parent, I'm interested in the ways in which I can raise my children to have these benefits, without all the harms I experienced and see from organized religion. Incidentally, I just read all of the books from Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception, The Anatomy of Peace, and The Outward Mindset. The Arbinger Institute was founded by Latter-Day Saints folks, and while I definitely register the vibes of Christian thought, they are fundamentally secular books, devoid of dogma. I do think it's very possible to draw from the more positive, ego-dissolving parts of religious spirituality and teaching, while rejecting the divisive parts. Completely aside from the ego conversation, another thing I have noticed about raising kids outside of a church is that my family lacks the same community that the Baptist church my household growing up attended. I think this is one of the major functions of organized religion. Provided you can remain in good standing with the church, you get a community, which serves all sorts of useful functions. Outside of a church, you have to manually find this, through friendships and other organizations. But there's big replacement cost to everything a church community gives you "batteries included". I'm very pro secular society, but I don't think we've come up with great answers to this problem, leading to potentially catastrophic levels of social fragmentation and susceptibility to cult-like online movements.

xisthesqrtof9 4y ago
I also grew up in a very strict Muslim household and this is very close to where I see religion’s place in the future of my (potential) family. A couple of questions that have been in my mind, that id like to ask. How do you choose which parts to share with your kids and which ones to omit? Have you found a community that your family can use to replace the church? For me I’d think they would be people from my back home, as a visible minority that’s quite easy but I do feel that if you don’t follow the religion entirely, you’d get judged and ostracized.

verisimi 4y ago

What is religion anyway? Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so. If so, aren't many systems arguably capable of being called religious? What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I think that science can be considered as a religion to most, as, in general, people don't verify information or what they are told. Instead they just believe it is true and trust that it has been verified. I really don't see much difference.

freeflight 4y ago
> Could you say that any system of thought, where believe rather than know, is a religion? I think so. This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
zen_1 4y ago
> What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so. Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?
jesuscript 4y ago
Religion is the only thing devoid of objective evidence. While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society. That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks. The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection. We are better than you is a potent drug.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jesuscript 4y ago

It depends. It can also be a ego foundation, similar to virtue signaling. Anecdotally, I’ve seen plenty of people establish themselves as morally superior to others. It’s no different than militant vegans, ultra left progressives, ultra right conservatives, the list is endless. It’s a mixed bag with religion. The non-red flags to look for is acceptance and a surrender to providence and nature. Everything else is fertilizer for the ego industrial complex.

superb-owl 4y ago
> the ego industrial complex Did you come up with this term? I might have to steal it ;)

thenerdhead 4y ago

There's a few common practices across religions, spirituality, and philosophies. Surrendering/forgiveness, constant reflection on death, and separation of the self tend to come to mind. Most religions instill these ideas/virtues which may "modulate" the ego. For devout practitioners, they tend to live by these virtues and actually "reduce" the ego to near extinction. The question is, do people naturally come across these ideas without religion/spirituality/etc? I was raised non-religious and didn't come across many of these ideas until my late 20s when I started to read again. Most of that came from reading religious/spiritual types of texts.

superb-owl 4y ago
The "Perennial Philosophy" school of thought [1] says that people rediscover these ideas over and over again. It takes a particularly prophetic individual to stumble over them de novo, but once the idea takes root it spreads quickly. There's a great quote from William James on the cycle of religious discovery, diaspora, corruption, and rediscovery, but I can't find it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
- thenerdhead 4y ago
  Not sure if this is the one you're talking about, but it rang a bell. I saw it in a Tony Robbins book most recently and then repeated in a book about TV addiction. “First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.” - William James "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
  - superb-owl 4y ago
    No but this one is even better!

blueflow 4y ago

I think this post is a example of "That it makes sense in your head doesn't mean the universe works like that". I mean, yeah, you can frame/conceptualize it like that, but i have doubt its useful or falsifiable.

tgv 4y ago
Even then, a phrase like this "people take their metaphysical beliefs seriously, and use them to guide their behavior" is so terribly unempirical, and completely undefined, starting with the weird description of "ego". That said, in the most trivial sense, religion does alter your behavior. The rest is the kind of reasoning that gives philosophy a bad name.

stevenfoster 4y ago

As summarized by Jesus of Nazareth: the greatest commandment is Love your God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself. I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system. After all the summarizer is claiming to be close with the creator. Something worth considering. So if our code is we will be consumed whatever we choose to be our god (science, religion, ourselves...) we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves. The most consistently kind, life giving people I have ever encountered are treating others the way they treat themselves. The people who I've been abused by, with hindsight can see they were harming me the way the harm themselves. This is critical for our own self diagnostics, alignment, and ultimately how we build healthy civilization. I would invite anyone reading this to use science to rigorously form, and reform questions. Science is a lousy religion in my opinion, however I have found rediscovering my own heritage through the Spanish Mystics, science applied to religion or perhaps better referred to as ones on personal faith has unlocked a peace within my own inner development and facing universe spanning unknowns. I hope this note finds you well.

thenerdhead 4y ago
There is also a book called "Predictably Irrational" that talks about a fun experiment where people could choose to cheat without being caught when reciting the ten commandments. They found that recalling the ten commandments or even an "honesty policy" before a test would reduce cheating/lying significantly. So why does recalling the Ten Commandments reduce our tendency to lie, even when we couldn't possibly be caught?
nico 4y ago
> Love your neighbor as yourself. Sometimes I wonder about the original intention and meaning of this expression I’ve come to believe that maybe Jesus meant it as: “Love yourself as your neighbor” Meaning: unless you love and accept yourself, it’s going to be hard to love others as well.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  I always thought it was a lead in to expanding your tribe. If you love your neighbor as yourself they become friends and maybe family. Group animosity and violence is much less likely if we are in the same tribe. With globalization we are all neighbors in some sense.

nordsieck 4y ago

I think this may partially be a case of mis-diagnosis. As someone who was raised in Christianity, and who later participated in the US Army and social dance, I think that a big part of ego modulation is: * Synchronized activities - especially physical movement * Shared suffering * Shared effort towards a common goal It just so happens[1] that most religions use both techniques heavily. Christian services typically involve the congregation speaking and singing in unison for an hour at a time. There is also a notion of universal suffering that is built into Christianity, that is typically emphasized through cultural activities and sermons. A big thing within Christianity is practical expressions. We used to host a men's shelter, did a variety of charity work, and supported missionaries. I've also done a buddhist meditation retreat. Everyone sat and meditated for an hour+ at a time, several times per day. I'm on the fence if that meets the criterion of "synchronized activities", since all of the action is entirely mental, but it definitely qualifies as "shared suffering". Same with not being able to speak for a week. And there was pretty strong encouragement to donate at the end, as well as participate in weekly "sits". Social dance is almost entirely "synchronized activity". And it leads to a very intimate, trusting community. Sort of. Depending on the dance, dancing through the night and being part of the "breakfast club" is also a right of passage for some, which, along with beat up feet, is a sort of "shared suffering". The military is pretty big on this stuff as well. Everyone thinks of basic training, but the experience is constantly repeated (although to a lesser level of discomfort) through training exercises. And marching is heavily emphasized during basic - not for any combat effectiveness reason - but because of its ability to engender trust and cohesion. I'm sure there's probably some mystery sauce in religion that I'm missing, but I think a lot of it is down to those 3 factors. --- 1. Maybe it's on purpose. Maybe it's convergent evolution. Heck - maybe it's divine will. I don't really care about the cause here.

superb-owl 4y ago
Yes, you make some great points here. Synchronized physical movement is much more important than most people realize. There are cults that rely on it heavily. I hope to write some more on this in the future.

brundolf 4y ago

This felt really on point until the end: > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) I nearly laughed out loud. Academia is notorious for having toxic, hierarchical dynamics. I'm not sure if the author is really unaware, or if they're blinded by wanting to form a science > religion narrative, but this last part seriously undercut what was otherwise a great article. But yes- growing up southern baptist in Dallas, the thesis strongly resonates with my experience. You'd see powerful business-men who should have had outsized egos being genuinely humbled by their beliefs. Those beliefs had a lot of flaws - I left them behind for a reason - but there was something unique and valuable about the way they cut through egos.

vlovich123 4y ago
Is that unique to scientific academia though or a problem with academia itself?
- brundolf 4y ago
  I don't think it's unique to scientific academia, but it felt like they were suggesting the scientific community is immune to these kinds of problems
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as). > I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions) "at least no more than in other professions" is the key. > Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs > Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk. > But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion. That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.

tombh 4y ago

My degree is in Religious Studies (which I actually think has been more useful to me in my software career than CS). I don't know who the author of the article is, or what the overall theme of the website is, all I can see is that it's an email newsletter? On the one hand I like that William James is mentioned, he's one of the fathers, some even consider him the father, of Religious Studies. The Varieties Of Religious Experience was the first serious academic attempt to _describe_ this extraordinary human aspect that we call, not for want of a better term, Religion. What had tended to happen up till then, and indeed what continues to happen, is that academia tries to _explain_ Religion. Religious Studies isn't fundamentally opposed to explaining its subject matter per se. But rather it is more fundamentally concerned with, well, _studying_ Religion. Which of course does mean at least being open to theories, such as the ego one in the article, but ultimately it's primary concern is more to create a dedicated space in which Religion can _present its case on its own terms_. Humanity _needs_ Religious Studies, just because Religion is Seriously Fucked Up™, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve serious academic attention, quite the opposite. So, on the other hand I'm a little hesitant about this article, because it is both invoking Religious Studies and trying to explain Religion in the same breath. I actually like the ego-control theory, I have no bones with that. And we were certainly not discouraged from coming up with our own theories at university. But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. Like I said, that does not at all mean that Religious Studios wouldn't welcome an overarching Grand Unified Theory of Religion, it's just to say that, if you learn anything about Religious Studies today, it's that a GUT is way, way down the list of Religious Studies' priorities.

golemotron 4y ago
> But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. And that's the religion of academia (I don't mean that pejoratively).
v-erne 4y ago

_9hey 4y ago

The Soviet Union was an extremist sect of scientism: they killed millions of people for not converting.

labrador 4y ago

I like to think of a helpful ego and an unhelpful ego. My helpful ego allows me to function in society with others to get my needs met and help the community I am part of be successful. My ego in this case is my interface to the world and this "personality" is how people know me. I know I am more than this and there is a mysterious self behind this mask that I'm trying to understand. I think the unhelpful ego is thinking I know things without evidence through faith and belief. Then judging others on how closely they align with my beliefs. My unhelpful ego sets me apart from others and sometimes causes me to circle the wagons with like minded people in opposition to others. Life is a competition for survival, so even this ego is helpful in some circumstances, but is often problematic and starts wars, murders, lawsuits and other hostilities. I don't know what happens after I die. I don't know where loved ones who passed went. I don't know why I was born or what I'm supposed to do here. I don't know that if I wire up enough transistors that my machine will become spontaneously conscious. I don't know that God exists or has a plan for me. I don't know if I am an individual with free will who acts independently from others. I don't know if I am living in a simulation. The list of things I don't know is immense. When I start pretending I know things is when I start getting in trouble.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

_9hey 4y ago

Given that ego minimization comes from viewing oneself with respect to a broader group/context, what is the effect of isolating one’s identity from the group/context? Wouldn’t it have the opposite effect? If someone is constantly being told how different they are from people in a group, they are less likely to closely identify with the group. Or with any single group. The end effect is that everyone becomes isolated, purposeless, and egotistical. Obsessing over intersectionality achieves this purpose flawlessly. One can slice a loaf of bread only so many times before all that’s left are crumbs.

svat 4y ago

While its main point is interesting to think about, this article still has a view of "religion" that is (despite token mentions of Buddhism and, via perennial philosophy, Hinduism) very influenced by Abrahamic (monotheistic) conceptions: especially in putting beliefs/faith as central: > One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic. Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.) For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).

superb-owl 4y ago
Some great points on the other aspects of religion! I specifically focused on metaphysical belief here, because that's one of the few things that separates religious communities from other communities. E.g. (as another poster pointed out) the military has many of the religious aspects you mentioned above. I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception. Both have intricate pantheons and a wealth of mythology. Zen Buddhism is probably the only exception here.
- svat 4y ago
  As someone who grew up with the intricate pantheons and mythology (and is continuing to learn and pass them on), I am familiar with them. :-) The distinction I'm making is not about whether belief is an aspect or not (it is), but about how central it is. We may just have to disagree about what the Western misconception is :) and it's not central (ha) to your thesis anyway, but let me put it another way. With monotheism came the distinction between "true" and "false" doctrine/religion, and as a result, these religions (and especially Christianity, probably because of its early history against the backdrop of Roman religion) is uniquely concerned with what is "true": putting belief/faith as central. This strongly influences the Western idea of religion (and also the idea of separating religious from non-religious) as a whole. As contrast, consider the examples from Japan above, and this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsofhh.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/german-christian-in-dialogue-with-balinese-on-ramayanas-historicity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsof... (from https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 )

photochemsyn 4y ago

Having a strong ego is not necessarily a wholly bad characteristic, as long as people are (1) capable of turning it off and (2) know when to turn it off. One likely advantage throughout human history is that those with strong egos are more likely to survive extremely difficult challenges - they might keep going when others lay down to die. If this concept of ego is expanded to an entire society, then a shared sense of identity is also a kind of 'community ego' which leads to social cohesiveness, the willingness to help other members of the group with their problems, leading to overall group success. This is often called the utilitarian argument for religious faith (but not for multicultural mixed religion, which is said to cause schisms in the group). In evolutionary terms, this might be called 'group selection'- although many religious people don't like to talk about evolution. For some reason, common heredity with 'the lower animals' upsets them deeply - a concept I've never been able to understand myself. This is't true of all religions of course, it seems more a hallmark of the Abrahamic traditions (Judeo-Christian-Islamic). I guess it's really about replacement of religious authority with scientific authority when it comes to origin stories, genesis, etc.? Where the inability to turn off the ego causes problems is in social interactions. Every academic department, for example, tends to have at least a few narcissitic Napoleon types who view every interaction with others as a winner/loser competition, in which one party is dominant and the other submissive (rather like chimpanzees really). If they don't come out on top, they show 'wounded ego' syndrome, which requires future retaliation of some sort against the other party to restore their dominant position. Generally such people are described as 'a real piece of work' and everyone dreads interacting with them. Typically they try to control and abuse their staff and students as well (look up UC Berkeley professor abuse scandal for about half a dozen recent examples). Incidentally, this academic phenomenon shows that 'Scientism' isn't any better than 'Religionism' at moderating the negative aspects of ego. It seems to be something some people learn how to do, and others don't. There don't seem to be any guaranteed routes to learning this either - some people say prayer and meditation, some people say psychedelic drugs, some people say extreme physical exercise. I often wonder if it's actually somewhat genetic in nature, a sort of narcissistic gene issue, perhaps an inability to feel empathy for others? Go figure.

bikamonki 4y ago

I stopped reading when I read Stoics listed next to Christians.

scotty79 4y ago

I have a different idea. For me religion looks like ego detachment device that lets you detach your ego from actual social reality of moral interactions with real people and redirect it inward. While living in physical reality we must interact with other people. But since there's a huge variety of people that may have varying moralities and concepts of what's good and bad, what's a favor and what's an offence and what's both it can be really hard to think about dealing with people. Religion makes things easier by substituting all the real people with all their specific peculiarities with virtual entity and excuses you from real moral interactions if you interact with that entity instead. Offence is no longer offence against your neighbor. Now it's offence against God (or karma or whatever) first and it becomes less relevant if your neighbor really perceives your action to be offensive or not or what kind of amendment he requires. When you are religious you need only to concern yourself with how you offended this virtual entity and what amendments are required for that entity which information religion helpfully provides on demand through priests and writings. This vastly simplifies things and was probably necessary step in development of human race as we switched away from small villages where you could remember what's offensive to whom and who appreciates what and started to live in larger settlements where caring about actual morality towards unique people would be too much work. Religions usually provide also ready made fake communities based not on interpersonal moral interactions, like natural communities, but on sharing interactions with this virtual entity. It also provides you with substitute devices so you can still feel the same feelings that were in smaller populations provided by real moral interactions. For example instead of actually helping someone, you might just pray for him and still feel a lot of the same feelings that come from successfully helping which would require putting in work in getting to know that person, their actual needs and what they consider a favor. This virtualization of morality wasn't a great solution though because it robbed people of authenticity of large part of their moral interactions and of their accuracy and adequacy. Now when we move to highly connected societies where we can survive in very large and dense population centers completely anonymously choosing our own small circle of other humans to interact with, to depend on, with our emotional, financial and physical security, we can finally get back to more authentic and varied moral interactions that we as a species have evolved the capacity for. It's one of the reasons, I think, why religion looses ground in recent decades. One of its key functions is no longer needed by most people.

dragontamer 4y ago

> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. Is it? In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and pharisees. While the one with arguably the smallest ego was the good Samaritan. There's no real evidence that religious people (even by religious teachings) are immune to the issues of selfish, self-centered thinking. ------- I say ego is independent. Religion doesn't affect it really. An ego-centric individual could be drawn into Religion for selfish reasons (ex: purely for the hope to get into Heaven without thinking about others), for example. There are certainly teachings within the religion about society and working together, etc. etc. But I don't think people necessarily follow those unless they were already predisposed into thinking about other people. I would argue that any religious scholar (at least, of Christianity), would point out that the Bible has numerous examples and stories to remind us that "Religionism isn't good by itself". There are plenty of priests and holy people throughout the ages who have failed to live up to the ideals of the religion. Ex: Moses's brother Aaron worshiped the golden calf with the rest of the Isrealites. Jesus was betrayed by an Apostle named Judas. The scribes / pharisees were some of the hardest set against Jesus, forcing Jesus to preach to non-believers (ie: Gentiles)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
comfypotato 4y ago
I interpret this line such that this instance of “religious mind” is associated with the directly aforementioned “saintly character”. That is to say that your examples of Aaron, the scribes, Pharisees, etc. were definitely not “saintly characters”. Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait. Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Aaron was literally God's hand chosen spokesman for Moses, the #2 Priest after Moses. Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was. ------ I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known. ------- King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well. The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.

simplify 4y ago

This theory is only half true. Any power structure allows abuse to happen. Business, politics, universities, kingdoms, celebrities... there's nothing about religion distinct in this regard, other than religion is more widespread. Any social structure known to man will be susceptible to abuse. What does make religion unique, as the article also states, is that it prescribes conquering the ego as one of its primary goals. The more of this we can get in the world, the better.

yibg 4y ago
One difference with religion is it requires some level of suspension of critical thinking and you have to take many things on "faith". This seems like a great way to dodge accountability and hand wave away things without being questioned too much.
- pastorhudson 4y ago
  I think every discipline requires some suspension of critical thinking. When I’m writing software I might start with a “faith” I can solve a problem I may not fully understand. I will come to understand the things I don’t currently understand when the time comes to implement them. I trust google or stack overflow will have my back! Theology and Philosophy are full of critical thinking. And I’m not sure you can find any success in religious practice without it.
  - yibg 4y ago
    But with say software, you can verify yourself if you wanted to whether something is true or not. And if you can find sufficient evidence that something isn't true it'll get corrected. With religion you're expected to believe many things without evidence. And often times in the face of evidence against the thing.
    - simplify 4y ago
      The anti-religious love to harp on the whole evidence thing, but in real life you almost never make decisions based on evidence. Instead, you base them on experiences – whether based your own or other people's. Here's a basic example: What's the evidence that Donald Trump was (or spicier, isn't) president? How do you verify this fact? Is it not simply faith in our system and word of mouth?

kang 4y ago

Religion is more of an attention modulator

evelynsalt 4y ago

How does this explain the existence of televangelists, megachurch pastors, church ladies, gurus, generally abusive people in religion?

helf 4y ago

The amount of seemingly pro-religious chatter in here is really surprising to me. I grew up in essentially a cultish variation of southern Baptist and have extensive experience with other denominations of “Christianity” and there is no way in fucking hell I would ever say a damn positive thing about the social clubs that are 99% of churches. Religion is almost entirely about control. The current state of this country is due to the evangelical movement and all the bullshit that has come with it. American “religion” and its followers can rot.

agumonkey 4y ago

Society too. Without people nothing stops me from dwindling in my own paranoia or mania. Being with others brings alternative point of views (too much these days) and help me breaks the DFS aspect of thinking.