Home » Mind & Soul » Atheism » Pick-and-choose religion

Pick-and-choose religion

© Francois Tremblay

Memetic adaptation exists in all areas of life. We come to realize more and more that the world is not moved only by physical objects but by ideas, information - it is for good reason that we call this the Information Age. Instead of being a phenomenon that is observed over centuries, the evolution and propagation of ideas has been accelerated by our new means of communication and is now counted in weeks and months.

Ironically, the universality of this phenomenon is observed most clearly with religion. Because of their doctrinary nature, the fact that they are emotionally-charged complexes (we identify easily with them), and their basically intangible nature (apart from any doctrinary book there might be), we can observe religions as a monolithic unit, a clearly-defined meme complex, that changes, subdivides itself, rises and falls in popularity, and such.

Religious beliefs and morality are no strangers to this phenomenon. It is clear that anyone today who would believe all the pseudo-scientific statements, history, and precepts in the christian bible would be considered a madman. Even the most rabid fundamentalist would never admit to believing, say, that the world is flat, or that genocide is good. The ignorant words of a desert tribe are today disproven by science, philosophy and history, and nobody would be taken seriously if he went directly against these things.

As culture moves towards greater enlightment, the scope and interpretation of religious doctrines becomes more and more restricted. Not only do we cease to follow rules which are clearly outrageous or contrariant (like stoning an adultress), but we also cease obeying them to the letter (as in the extent of the submission of women).

How can we reconcile this with the religionist claim of absolutism, and come to an understanding of the workings of religious pseudo-morality ? My understanding of it, based on observation, is that it is both absolutist and culturally subjective. It is absolutist in the sense that religious people profess that they follow the doctrines of their religion to the letter, despite changing the scope and interpretation of these doctrines as culture changes. It is also culturally subjective in fact, in the sense that it adapts as I described before. As culture makes something unacceptable as a belief, the belief is slowly eroded and the line is pushed further towards one side or another, pretty much the same phenomenon that we observe in politics and political systems.

The consequence of this dichotomy is devastating, much more so than both beliefs held separately. On the one hand, absolutism gives any moral system the authority of tradition, inflexibility and pseudo-righteousness. On the other hand, the mental sloth of culture-based morality orients this inflexibility towards emotional compromise and evil. The concrete result of this is religious wars and persecution - the intimate knowledge that one is inflexibly right, while positing this "right" as "whatever we feel is right". Or as George Carlin would put it, "my god has a bigger dick than your god".