Was Darwin Right?

Otep!!!  It’s been a long time and it’s nice to hear from you.  My apologies though for not having been able to respond the soonest because I was tied to some matters which called for my immediate attention.

Anyway, alas!  The kind of blogging I want to generate!  See what I mean William?

Moving on to the issues raised by Otep.  I understand the relevance of making distinctions between the micro and the macro aspects of religion.  It becomes easy for us to categorize the functions of religion to man as individual — with private decisions to make, and internal demons to address — and man as gregarious.  However, when you consider religion and its observance as something complex, the distinction becomes blurred.

I agree with Otep that religion is a constructed phenomenon designed to handle different forms of uncertainty.  It keeps man sane because he doesn’t have to worry about things and concepts beyond what his neurons can assess.  Besides, why should he bother about the mysteries of the universe when there is a supernatural Being who/that doesn’t want to be understood?  But man, the individual, can’t be free from his social attachments.  No matter how serious he becomes entwined with his internal demons he is still tied to the community where he belongs (even ascetics and hermits can’t be entirely free of their worlds).  What’s more, even if he acts in his individual capacity, it would still result in the creation of local histories — his story as a person who is directly linked to his ecology.  Thus, there is an overlap between private and public and distinctions are somewhat difficult to achieve.  This is not to say that we should forget about the psychology of religion.  We just need to look at man’s practice of religion in the context of his environment.

Again, I agree with Otep’s sociology of religion in which it serves as a belief system that attempts to fulfill the expectations of (and on many occasions, attempt to sustain) the social order.  Although it sounds more like the commonly used definition of ‘ideology’, religion as belief system serves as a lever that once pulled could move even the most passive person to action.  What bothers me though is his critic of the major world religions’ opting to outdo each other.  In some sense it’s true that pressures were created and will remain for years to come.  This is especially applies to mission churches that claim to have all the answers to man’s problems and that other denominations are mere repositories of doctrinal error.  But I don’t see them as lynchpins of peace and security in world affairs.  On the contrary, the emergence of new religious movements and the revival of old ones also have positive effects on both local and international developments.

The impact of their activities on various local development efforts is very welcomed in communities where it is directed.  Forget about Dubya Bush and his right-wing acolyte.  They give religion and religious organizations (at least the good ones) a bad rep.  Empirical studies show (Barro, 2004) that there is a direct link between religiosity (not spirituality) and economic growth.  These studies were conducted in ghetto neighborhoods (Bronx) and guess what, the active  presence of different churches in these communities contributed to the decline of gang wars, drug trafficking, and recidivism to name just a few.  In the Philippines, there are Catholic and Christian organizations that are directly involved in community development (which I think should be studied further by development scientists). 

On the international level, the World Bank just got interested in religious issues and invited members of the World Council of Churches to discuss development interventions.  Picture this, the World Bank, one of the pillars of modernization theory, funded many academic and policy research majority of which argued that the more modern and secular a community becomes the more they deviate from religious beliefs and practice.  Now, it’s trying to muster the influence of religious organizations after realizing that the neo-liberal agenda is inadequate in addressing economic and social problems of poverty, marginalization, unemployment, etc.

Lastly, I still agree with Otep that religion is critical to the Philippines noting the many different religious stripes we have.  Unlike him, I believe that it HAS NOT FAILED — YET.  The adaptive nature of religion and its complexity provides us more space that can be utilized for development purposes.  I don’t deny that patronage politics is still at play in the country but to stop there would be very limiting.  There are many rooms for maneuver religion and religious organizations that can be beneficial to the people.

Olrayt!  Otep, if you have friends who are interested in discussing more about religion please tell them about my blog.  Their ideas would surely help.  Thanks.

Well, well.  Two commentaries!  Ain’t that something!  Let me now have my two centavos worth of response.

First off, who says I have to start the debate and write something in a diary-like fashion?  Is there a blogging rule that says make it sound like Che’s Bolivian Diary or make it sexy like the Red Shoe Diaries?  Eh, William?  As far as I’m concern, this blog is for people who doesn’t give a crap about rules or structures.  As long as you have something sensible to say, post it.  Whether you’re in school, enrolled or not, Out-of-School or pretending to be in school to get from your parents your matriculation, or you’re just plain silly in the head, I don’t mind.  Just be sure you can back your thoughts up when it’s needed.

Next, I think you miss the whole point of categorizing religion as an opium of society.  By the way, it’s Marx who said that in case you don’t remember.  When he talked about ‘religion = opium’, he was simply referring to the incapacitating effects of the drug on humans making them inert and unproductive.  It’s not because people see or claim to see ghosts, spirits, etc.  Hallucinations are not even close.  Marx meant that there is social stagnation associated in the practice of religion because instead of the people staving off any form of exploitation by the ruling elites to advance the proletariats’ socio-economic status, the poor people would just leave it to God.  Hence, no progress.  No breaking of the proletariats’ fetters.  Furthermore, Marx idea of ‘religious opium’ was borrowed from Feuerbach who said that God (not religion) was a product of man’s inability to address his imperfection.  In other words, man, instead of improving his condition by finding solutions to his everyday problems, started to believe that there is a Supernatural Being in-charged of everything, i.e., that God is a product of man’s imagination.  But over the years this process had been reversed in which it is now believed that it was God who created man and not vice-versa.  Thus, belief in God and the system in which it is expressed — religion — is regressive.

As for Wilb’s comment about blind faith, I think this is just half of the story.  It’s true that deception takes place in the exercise of religion especially in locations where religious leadership is a source of power and control.  An example would be Shamans and High Priests of extinct civilizations like the Aztecs and the Incas.  In these cases, religion and its prcatice was a form of manipulation to serve the ends of the leadership committee.

However, this ‘arms race’ for control and deception is not a common religious occurence, except in cults.  Religious devotion and commitment are exhibited not entirely by poor people of society but especially by its affluent members.  These people who are educated in most of the premiere schools and employed in well-placed jobs would know the difference between ‘of them being had’ and the genuine practice of their religion by their flock leaders.  Therefore, it’s not easy, or shall I say pretty much a hasty generalization and confine our understanding of religion or any form of belief system as negative.

There you go.  So, William, I didn’t write anything about myself in a diary-like format.  Blogging will be the thing of the future.  We just need to learn how to use it properly.  Ohh… thanks Wilb.  Please tell the rest (debsoc) about the topic and let’s test their steel.

Cheers,

Lem

The Guvnor

Well, it seems that the gauntlet I’ve thrown out in the open has not generated any response saved one (that is William’s which is quite creative.  Man!  What kind of comment is that?  It’s not even a paragraph!).

Hmm…perhaps all you people are busy doing so many other things and you can’t find time to talk about unimportant issues like the one on religion.  That’s understandable because people, nowadays, would prefer to do things (or talk about things) that they feel would give them some incentives.  Pretty much materialistic, right?  I desire not to offend your senses but that’s the way I see it.  What would you get by talking about the pros and cons of religion in society anyway?

Many things.  For one, it’s a space opened for us to see if we really understand our nature as humans.  It’s a given that religion and its practice is something private, thanks to William James, and that a public discourse on such topic might lead to insulting people with differing beliefs, i.e., preference for religious moderation, aka silence.  However, I would stress that there’s a great body of literature that treats this topic scientifically.  Interestingly, the researches conducted on religion have varying results.  Some argued that it leads to more social cohesion and solidarity considering the costly signalling effects it has on its members.  Others argue, Sam Harris for instance, that adhering to any form of religion, not spirituality, would lead humanity to its own demise.  "It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war it will not be because it was written in our stars but it was because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like ‘God’ and ‘paradise’ and ’sin’ in the present that will determine our future" (Harris, 2005).

From a sociological and anthropoligical perspectives, what characterize our society as civil is a by-product of many beliefs consolidated and appropriated for thousands of years.  Religion is one of those that determines the kind of interactions we have as people regardless of whether we accept our religiosity or non-religiosity.  Concepts like social capital, trust, cooperation, systems, etc. are results of religious activities designed to put some order in a very disorganized world.

I have so many things to share with you next time.  As for now, this limited post, I’m hoping would encourage those of you who have the steel to resist the temptation of passivity and summon all your rational powers to say something.  Try finding out if you could agree to the terms specified in the premises above or debunk them completely.  Besides, you have the free will to do that (or perhaps you might think you don’t.

Cheers,

Lem

The Guvnor

As the title of this blog message shows, it’s all about adaptation.  I’m new to this blogging thing and personally I find it a little bit off from the things that I do.  There was even a time that I promised myself I wouldn’t do this.  But hey, this is a trend in which a majority of net users are so fond of.  I might as well give it a try.  See if I could find some pattern.

I’m thinking, perhaps, that this can become an avenue for us (those interested in small talks about science and social design) to exchange views.  Yep, you got it right.  This is not your typical blog in which the owner (even the eavesdroppers) could release his/her angst. There’s too much of that in the world already.  THIS IS AN ANGST-FREE BLOG.  What we need (and this is only my preference) is to have discussions about a variety of things — from philosophical questions to what strategy Frodo, Aragorn and the rest of the gang in The Lord of the Rings should have taken to destroy Mordor — that may seem obvious but is more complex than you would have imagined.

This site is about complexity.  This is about finding solutions to age-old, modern, even contemporary dilemmas through sensible exchange of ideas and strategies.  This is about convincing myself that I can convince you that YOU can convince others that change is good and together we can change the world no matter how small that change might be.  This blog is a positive blog.  Of course I’m expecting disagreements at times but I’m hoping such would not lead to anyone killing another.  Especially me.

One thing I don’t like about blogging is that bloggers are too full of themselves that they love reading about themselves.  So, my suggestion is, if anybody has some thoughts or issues(academic, political, social, economic, religious, etc) we can discuss, bring it on.

Or perhaps, I could suggest an overlooked topic not most of you would love to talk about — that is, RELIGION…is it good or bad for society?  So planet people, are you game? Or are you already wetting your pants and skirts?

Cheers,

Lem

The Guvnor