Home > Critical Thinking, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology > What Rational Inconsistencies Tell Us About Belief Systems

What Rational Inconsistencies Tell Us About Belief Systems

As many of you know- I don’t see any real difference between faith in traditional religions, so-called cults and quasi-religions and secular religions. All belief systems which rely on the unquestioning faith of its followers are scams perpetrated for the benefit of a few at a massive cost to many.

But have you ever wondered- What does the willingness of true believers to actually believe in utter and obvious bullshit say about them?

Some of you might counter by saying that most people are dumb and while that may be true- it is inadequate to explain the sheer amount of bullshit most believers readily accept. Let me illustrate my point with a few examples-

1. Let us look at the Judeo-Christian creation myth, specifically the intersection of sexual morality in that strain of monotheism and the story of Adam and Eve. Now since Adam and Eve were supposedly the only human couple on earth, wouldn’t any grandkids come through incest between Eve and her murdering son or another son, or the murdering son or another one fucking one or more of the sisters, or through Adam knocking up his daughters?

Now you would think that this rather big problem in the myth would have been obvious to pretty much the first average guy who heard it- but how many people talk about this issue at any length? Isn’t it odd that this story was retained in the myths of three major religions given the excessive obsession of monotheistic Judeo-Christian with shaming anything that falls outside a very narrow spectrum of behavior?

I mean, couldn’t the priests have made up the story such that their god created a few hundred couples? If you are an omnipotent god who can create the universe, what is the trouble with knocking out a few more Adams and Eves while the creation machine is on?

2. Now I will turn my attention to a popular secular religion known as environmentalism. While this belief system has many similarities to Catholicism as other have previously pointed out- it has one peculiarity that sets if apart from traditional religions.

Environmentalism central, but rarely expressed, dogma is- people are bad and must die. While I am very misanthropic and would like to see people die, I do not try to makeup cover stories about saving the world to justify my misanthropic thoughts. To me- it is about revenge and schadenfreude.

Environmentalists on the other hand have an incessant need to make up cover stories to justify their carefully hidden misanthropy. They just have to oppose and try to play spoilsport about anything that might make the lives of someone else better. While the target of their self-righteous fraud covers a spectrum of things from an increase in atmospheric CO2, automobile use, building cities or building factories- the overall narrative is the same. It goes like this- “Doing this will cause horrible problems and kill people”. It is most peculiar that environmentalists are particularly upset when that activity will increase the living standard of non-white people.

They somehow don’t see the hypocrisy of talking about environmentally friendly bullshit when they themselves live in and benefit from very “environmentally unfriendly” systems. But are they really that stupid?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Dniriad
    January 31, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Brahmin, decadence has sheared subtlety from your soul, for what reason else would you confound traditional and modern belief systems. You can reduce everything to the demos if such is your wish, but what skill?

    Let not your heart follow your wayward ratio on these matters.

  2. javert
    January 31, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    That previous message almost reads as if it had been written by a bot…

    Really, not only environmentalism but any other religion consider its nonfollowers evil, wants them to die (buddism seems to be the exception but I’m pretty uninformed about it) and can’t stand the idea of they living confortably. Don’t see why it needed to be highlighted for that.

  3. Dniriad
    January 31, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    A bot I most certainly am not. It be well that your post included the caveat ‘almost’.

    As for the fact that you disagree
    and appeal in this vein to religion’s misanthropee,
    What mattereth this to those of our caliber,
    Upon most heads we would fall the Excalibur.

    The Gods will us raise upon a throne,
    And we wield the scepter will on our own,
    By raising his sights to our justice bright,
    The common man will tremble with delight.
    A new reign of order with our dawn will break,
    Now please do excuse me, I must finish my steak.

  4. Webe
    February 1, 2012 at 4:29 am

    Perhaps you are misreading the story of Adam & Eve. The question is not: How is it possible that there are so many people? We already know there are lots of people, so yes, it is possible. The question is: How different are all these people? Exactly how are they related? In the story, everybody in the end comes from the same father and mother, so basically they are related as are brothers and sisters. We all know this is not literally true, but it indicates that there are no übermenschen or sub-humans, at least not by nature or descent.
    The word Adam gives a clue: Adam is formed from the Adamah (the gramatical feminine of Adam), which is (the) earth, whereas in Adam the word blood (‘blood-line’) is suggested. The word Eve is related to the word for life, and this suggestion is explicit in the narrative: “And Adam called his wife’s name Ḥawwāh; because she was the mother of all living”. Clearly Adam & Eve do not figure here as any other Dick & Jane (but then the oldest pair).
    Pressing the story too far is like faulting an analogy because carrying the comparison beyond the point of similarity reveals that it isn’t a perfect parallel. Maybe nobody cares about the fact that if you think about it literally long enough, there is a problem with incest here. It’s like suggesting that Icarus would have needed warmer clothing and an oxygen mask long before the sun was close enough to melt his wings: narratives are not theories.

    • February 1, 2012 at 4:35 am

      Man, he’s talking about the issue of incest,

  5. Dniriad
    February 1, 2012 at 4:54 am

    Webe restores subtlety to the interpretation of religious symbolism, l’excellence.

    Clint Eastwood follows with an abortive non sequitur, splendid!

  6. Columnist
    February 1, 2012 at 5:16 am

    It is true environmentalism leads to a reversal of normal morality. Normal morality, that is, honesty, justice, fairness, compassion, increases the number of humans. So environmentalism (must) promote(s) deceit, injustice, unfairness and callousness.

  7. hoipolloi
    February 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Webe has already addressed the religious symbolism.

    Adam and Eve story establishes one of the dogmas of Abrahamic religions, the fraternity, interconnectedness and equality of all humans. It was a great theological construct proposed early in the history of human society. Easy for me to say the same thing now knowing the DNA nucleotide sequence of people from differnet corners of the world. The narrative should be understood the way it was proposed by its author(s) and not extrapolated excessively. Show me a human endeavor (including hard sciences) that does not have a dogma.

    First cousin marriages are frowned upon in the West, but is widely practiced in many societies in the world. Incest is a taboo today everywhere. What was it ten thousand years ago? Or during the times of Pharoahs?

    Agree with AD that religious authorities do preach many foolish and self contradicting dictums which the faithful refuse to confront out of their own perfidy.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: