God & Religion: Evolutionary Opiates

Religion may be a evolutionary opiate.There is a theory (hypothesis) that the tendency to have magical beliefs may be an evolutionary niche that played a role in our evolutionary survival. Magical thinking gives people hope in an otherwise apathetic cruel world. It may have helped early human endure and cope with harsh survival hardships and statistically cruel adversities. What believers really seek to find through religion is a sense security, order, purpose. It is the hope that there is an answer to the “why” of their existence (sometimes a miserable one). They want to feel special enough for a deity to concern him/herself with their obviously insignificant lives; Insignificant from the overwhelmingly large perspective of the universe. A person’s life may affect other people, his immediate environment, in very rare occasions mankind and our planet. But outside this picoscopic blue oasis the significance of their lives is nonexistent. The universe carries on unaware of our existence.

The believer’s desire is understandable, even skeptics wonder about these things. Shit! On some level we all seek some kind of validation to our existence. Subconsciously, I delude myself with the idea that I am special. However, I’m just another very curious self-aware human; One of many of our species; not exactly the same as the rest, but not very different. These false ideas help me emotionally tussle with failure, adverse circumstances. I delude myself with the prospect of an incredibly bright successful future to motivate myself, knowing full well many of my fantasies will not come true. I could fall ill and die. I could fall victim to some life altering event. A jagged frozen blue turd can fall off and airplane and land on my throat or I could just fail miserably. There is no destiny, no guarantees. The universe has no bias towards or against me. The only guarantee is that someday I will die.

It is normal for individuals to feel like they are destined to someday enjoy glory, wealth, happiness, success, peace, pleasure, a sense of fulfillment etc. These are delusions in contrast to statistical reality. Most people don’t become wealthy, glorious, and successful. Many die young, poor, under miserable conditions; work their entire lives earning meager livings with little satisfaction. Most don’t become what they dreamed they would grow up to be. Many achieve their goals, but the satisfaction is short lived or not as pleasurable as envisioned. Many, who were on the road to glory and success, living dream lives, die before their prime. But if we were to be so blatantly honest, realistic and pessimistic with ourselves I suppose we would all be overdosing on Percocet and Valium. There is plenty to be depressed about. A little Intentional self deception helps us deal with what would otherwise be overwhelming.

A very common example of this conjuration we play with ourselves occurs when a loved one passes away. To try and cope people sometimes say things like “He gone to a better place now”, “we will see her again when Jesus comes”, “I know I’ll see him in heaven” or “She is in heaven smiling down on us”. Yet our emotions defraud us and contradict our statements. We cry and grieve like we will never see them again. Deep down we are well aware death is an end and the likelihood of ever enjoying that person’s company again is nil. This is the reason why many religions, if not all, concern themselves with an afterlife. They help believers cope with the prospect of their own mortality.

So I wonder if religion is an expression of a somewhat necessary “brain generated delusion” that evolution has provided the human species. None the less, this particular expression of an otherwise useful evolutionary niche, is past its prime in many ways, and is retarding humanities progress.

Bush in a Skirt and Lipstick on a Pig!!

I just got the facsimile, the data is in, Americans are stupid! Sadly I have lost faith in my fellow Americans to make intelligent responsible decisions. I will go to the polls to vote on November 4th only to have 10 morons negate my intelligent vote. I don’t think I am full of myself either. I consider myself a person of average intelligence but sadly that is more than what most Americans seem to have between their “errs”.

Even in the face of an impending doom of ecological destruction, economic perils, heightening of global tensions leading toward a “Nucular” war, and a seriously failing educational system; where the governing party has done nothing but hastened the degeneration of our habitat, our society, our government, our liberty, our economy, and peace; America’s cholesterol rich hearts and phlegmatic minds are enchanted by an ignorant hockey MILF they can associate with.

In these days in time, America needs an intellectual superhero, a vibrant charismatic powerhouse that can mobilize this country’s people and the world in the right direction. Yet the American people are pondering electing a dull elderly physically impaired man, who brings nothing new to the table, who is supposed to understand our days in time and our future but can’t comprehend how operate a fucking user friendly PC! He has a 10% chance death from acute old age in the next four years leaving us with an ignorant religious wacko hockey mom for a president who will be tasked with filling three lifelong Supreme Court seats. What real choice do people with half a brain have? You have to be stupid or a masochist to vote for the McCain-Palin Ticket.

So if you like Bush in a skirt and lipstick on pigs , vote and elect Sarah Palin the MILF. You won’t get laid but you will be fucked!!!!

The Government Fingering Your Brain

I was watching the BBC series Horizon today and came across a most interesting topic. It concerned possible future advancements in artificial intelligence. They spoke of decoding the human brains language and translating it into computer code. With this achievement one could possibly read a human’s thoughts and memories. I was in awe at the possible implications and applications of this technology.

We currently live in a world where information is vital to people as well as governments. I asked myself, who would be interested enough in reading another human’s thoughts to develop this technology? Well, our government is currently in the business of ease dropping on human communications foreign as well as domestic, with the pretense that it is its “moral” obligation to “protect” it’s citizens (though I suspect it is in the business of protecting itself and its interests). This technology would be a marvelous addition to their surreptitious arsenal of privacy despoiling weapons.

This would be the ultimate invasion of privacy. This would be the equivalent of God knowing your every thought and judging you on them. The religious masses should not abhor this idea because they live with this paranoid thought daily and accept it passively. However this thought should startle the rationally inclined and those who value free thought.

If this technology is to be introduced into a society I believe it will be through the judicial system. It is easier for the public to accept the invasion of their liberties if there is a moral excuse. Everyone empathizes with the families of victims. However not everyone has the intuition to rationally analyze in depth and weigh the consequence of forfeiting a liberty even if the cause seems superficially just. This concept of relinquishing liberties in exchange for security, or the enforcement of moral codes, is similar to placing iron bars on all your house windows and doors. You’re relatively safe but you don’t realize that in keeping unwanted intruders out you have also enclosed yourself in a cage. Worse so however, because you are not just forfeiting your freedom, you are also giving up your children’s without their consent.

This whole idea brings up the question of whether or not morality trumps an individual’s freedom. Do we really want to live in a world where morality is the absolute? Do we really wish to live in a world where morality is enforced by any means necessary including invading your thoughts. One might argue that if you are a law abiding citizen you have should have no fear of this. But what if the law is evil?

What is right or wrong? Morals are arbitrary ideas. We all agree to abide by laws (moral codes) in order to keep a common peace and escape the nasty, brute realistic term of “survival of the fittest” that the rest of the wilderness abides by (” eat or be eaten”). Morals are artificial conditions human society abides by; and our government’s purpose is to ensure the enforcements of these conditions. We surrender our innate terms for survival, to do whatever to whomever in order to ensure our survival, for a passive submissive but enjoyable life. The moment this mutual understanding between individuals does not reap any benefits or jeopardizes our survival, we revert back to our primal instincts (take “looting” during Hurricane Katrina as example). Morality is circumstantial, it is not an absolute. Otherwise wars would never be fought.

What is the function of liberties? The liberties societies agree on protect the individual’s interests and keeps life pleasurable. Liberties act as checks that keep a balance of power between society’s interests and the individuals. What if the Government becomes corrupt and oppressive (imagine that farfetched idea)? What if you are under the control of an oppressive majority? Wouldn’t you like the ability to protect yourself and your interests? We all do and so did our forefathers. They agreed to respect the liberties we enjoy today.

Liberties protect us from the same selfish and apathetic aspect of human nature that we form governments to guard us against. So in my opinion morality does not trump liberties. This is not to say that liberties are absolute. The two must exist harmoniously in order for the individuals in the society to live pleasant lives. One should not be allowed to take absolute precedence over the other. It is the will of the group versus the will of the individual. The two are interdependent. Liberties must be held as something sacred in most circumstances in order protect the individuals that make up the whole of society. This is because Society’s collective happiness is directly correlated to the individuals. Morals can only authentically and fruitfully exist in free societies where people of good nature consciously agree to live by social codes in order to mutually enjoy their benefits’. Laws otherwise are the will of despots and enforced by immoral oppressive regimes. This is why protecting individual rights is vital.

So when would it be right to read a person’s thoughts? Should we not hold our minds as sacred? This of course is a speculative futuristic idea, but the fundamental underlying concept is a very real dilemma.