To explain this apparent paradox, I have to begin by explaining a story that stuck with me. An old folk tale of the Netherlands tells the story of a Jewish school in Amsterdam, where a young boy is instructed by the Rabbi to fill a glass of water half-full before the lesson begins, and to fill it again, halfway full during the break. The boy, considers this arbitrary and ridiculous, and instead fills the glass before the lesson begins.
An old man enters the classroom, and during the lesson attempts to pick up the glass. Lacking the strength to bring a full glass to his mouth, he drops the glass, causing an awkward disturbance. During the break, the Rabbi tells the boy "I told you to fill the glass twice, and you refused to. Don't change a habit without understanding it, because it causes problems like these.".
The story explains the value of rituals and tradition. It also warns us about the danger of changing habits that appear irrational or arbitrary. Human society is a complex system, in which many institutes, habits, rituals and traditions exist, without serving a clear purpose that is readily apparent to us. Upon learning new knowledge, we seek to change this complex system, and remove elements that we consider unnecessary.
In most cases however, we will find that the elements that we sought to remove provide a valuable function, that may in some cases be different from those functions that we will readily admit to each other, or can openly discuss or acknowledge. In other cases, the introduction of new elements threatens to replace old elements that provided certain additional benefits that they were never intended to provide, but nonetheless provided.
It may be useful to illustrate this concept with a few examples. As an example of the removal of an element leading to undesirable side-effect. We can look at Africa. Women in certain African tribes, namely, the Herero and the Mbanderu suffered from an epidemic of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, because of sexually transmittable diseases that were spread from person to person due to promiscuous sexual behavior.
Western doctors, upon meeting these tribes, were convinced that they could help these tribes by treating these women with antibiotics. They successfully managed to eliminate an unpleasant and potentially painful condition. However, a change happened in this society. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease caused infertility amongst these women. When the condition is treated, infertility disappears.
As a result, fertility amongst the women increased. A population that had for centuries been at a stable level of 3 children per women, of whom about 33% died before adulthood, suddenly shot up massively. Having had infertility for centuries, high fertility remained an issue of status. We now see the consequences of this intervention around the African continent. The elimination of an apparently meaningless and bothersome element of life destabilized society in many different ways.
As another example closer to home, the introduction of new forms of entertainment radically changed European culture. Children do not play outside anymore because they now have videogames. As a result they sit at home, and become obese. Adults watch television. As a result, social networks in a neighborhood decline, because people who would once play cardgames together or go to the local pub sit inside identical homes, staring at identical television screens. People become unfamiliar with their neighbors, and begin to feel unsafe. Local communities dissolve, and people instead become dependent upon government.
This phenomenon is not unique to human society, it can be found in any complex system, including nature. The elimination of a single species may trigger a chain reaction, causing an expansion in numbers of other species, that may cause an extinction of yet other species. In many cases, our intervention in the stability of the biosphere ends up threatening the stability of the anthroposphere as well.
The most tragic example of this is the Great Chinese Famine that killed tens of millions of people. The Chinese government encouraged farmers to kill sparrows, because they ate grain seeds. As a result, food production increased at first. However, this temporary increase was followed by a great decline. The sparrows ate locusts as well, and the elimination of sparrows caused a massive increase in the number of locusts.
We could draw the conclusion from this that we should stifle each and every form of innovation, and attempt to maintain the status quo at all cost. This is one conclusion that some people draw. They believe that every intentional human intervention in a stable system is a bad idea, and attempt to maintain the situation they have found themselves in. A radical example of this attitude would be the Amish.
Others go a step further, and try to go back to the root, a time before radical changes happened to society that set in motion a process of destabilization. Some radical environmentalists for example suggest that the development of civilization should be undone.
However, neither of these approaches has my preference. The problem with an absolute rejection of innovation is that it is often difficult if not impossible to survive without accepting at least some change. In many cases, the alternative to innovation is extinction.
As an example, Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse', writes that the Vikings of Greenland went extinct because they refused to eat fish, as the climate of Greenland was changing and agriculture became difficult. As another example, the resistance of the Russian elite to modernization eventually led to the disastrous communist revolution. The Great Purge of Stalin executed about a thousand people per day. By comparison, the Tsarists executed about a single person per week.
The problem with going back to the root is that in many cases, the situation has changed so much that the original state of society that once was has simply become impossible to reproduce. As an example, a man who leaves his farm to work in the city may dislike his new situation. However, returning has become impossible. He sold his farm. Reentering his old occupation would likely require large investments to buy land. His old employees may have left.
Then how should we respond to innovation? The correct response would be to ask ourselves, what the effects of an innovation could be, before accepting or rejecting it. We have to be particularly careful with innovations that carry certain characteristics.
Innovations that are still rapidly changing themselves are dangerous, as the innovation may seem acceptable at first, but rapidly mutates into something unacceptable after we have accepted it.
As an example, a new partner may appear pleasant at first, but soon comes with many strings attached. Within a few weeks, your partner may expect you to stop going to parties, purchase a cell phone so he or she can be continually updated about what you are doing, get a (better) job to satisfy their need for social status, and change your physical appearance.
The correct approach to such an innovation would be to distrust it at first, and abandon it when it betrays its intentions, while you can still abandon it. As an example, the computer may have appeared as a pleasant innovation at first. However, the computer soon came with many strings attached. The computer could not come alone, as we soon needed printers, headphones, graphics cards, USB-sticks, virus-scanners, ad-ware scanners, spamfilters, internet and numerous additional innovations to be able to continue to operate a computer.
Operating a computer has now become a profession in and of itself. What is worse is that our colleagues, our friends, and our society as a whole now expects us to use a computer, since we have accepted the intrusion of the computer into our life. Like the automobile before it, the computer has successfully made us dependent upon it.
Other signs to be wary of an innovation are its uncompromising attitude. To return to the old example, a new partner may be unwilling to share our attention with your older friends. Similarly, modern entertainment is notorious for its uncompromising attitude. When computer games are invented, board games become rare to nonexistent. The invention of the machine or motorized transport makes certain old labors obsolete. How many of my readers have ever met an actual "milkman"?
To touch upon a more controversial example, newcomers to a society may be unwilling to tolerate the old members of the society. Common victims of this phenomenon are Jews and Homosexuals. The correct response to such a situation would be to refuse entry into the community to these newcomers.
Innovations that lead to a decline in diversity should be rejected. Nature provides us with the perfect example. Genetic diversity leads to strength, as pathogens are unable to spread quickly through the population, while the chance of at least a few individuals being resistant to the pathogen remains high. The Coyote, an animal that is capable of surviving from a diverse diet thrives, despite changes in its environment. The Giant Panda, an animal that depends on a single food source, is vulnerable.
The guidelines I have cited above also apply to religious and secular philosophies. New philosophies should be able to coexist with older philosophies, ideally even in the same individual. They should supplement what was originally there, as opposed to replacing it. Furthermore, philosophies should be able to be adopted partially, as opposed to fully.
This is a non-Abrahamic approach to religion, as the mistake of seeking exclusive domination over the mind of an individual is a very rare and recent phenomenon in Dharmic cultures, mostly caused by exposure to detrimental Abrahamic influences. The people that call themselves Hindus vary widely in their beliefs, with many incorporating different Pagan Gods and different practices, rituals and forms of worship. Hindus can be pantheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic and atheistic. Similarly, many people in China are Buddhists as well as Taoists and Confucianists. In Japan, Shintoism and Buddhism are difficult to fully separate, with many people being Shintoists as well as Buddhists.
What is commonly called Atheism by Westerners is a recent phenomenon, that developed out of Deism and Humanism. As we developed a growing understanding of the world around us, many phenomena that were once explained through a deity could now be explained through natural laws.
However what many Atheists forget is that the influence of Christian thinking and Christian philosophy is so widespread and dominant in our culture, that many of us do not even recognize it. Those who do recognize this influence often refer to themselves as Christian Atheists, with Dawkins being one of them.
Many Atheists however are repeating the mistake made by Christians two thousand years ago, because they are still engaged in an Abrahamic manner of thinking. In the same manner that Christians sought to eliminate every trace of Pagan religion and culture, many Atheists have sought to do the same thing to Christianity. This was particularly widespread amongst communist nations, that closed down churches and persecuted priests. Robespierre attempted this as well, going so far as to institute a Cult of Reason.
Hindus however, have followed the traditional Dharmic approach after contact with Christianity. Hinduism incorporated Jesus, interpreting his legend as an incarnation of Krishna. Hinduism is also called Sanatana Dharma, or, the Eternal tradition. The name indicates the universality of the core beliefs. This theory of Perennial philosophy implies that the same core truths can be found in many different traditions in many different ages, and in many different areas.
This approach is the opposite of Protestant Fundamentalist Christianity which teaches that a correct following of a certain number of core beliefs as found in the Bible is the essence of the religion. Instead it implies that the true law, the essence of Christianity, is simple, and has little to do with modern dogmas and Apostles creeds.
The Bible confirms this idea, as in Luke 10:25-28 we find:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
The biggest mistake that Christians ever made was repudiating Europe's Pagan heritage which had provided our people meaning, stability and happiness for centuries. As Atheists, it would be unwise for us to repeat this mistake, by repudiating the Christian foundations of our society.
Instead we should attempt to look at the core values of our philosophies and traditions, and search for a way to ensure their survival, into the 21st century.
As Jesus himself indicated, the core of Christianity is very simple, and it is luckily by no means unique to Christianity alone. Jesus teaches us to have mercy and compassion for the weak, instead of humiliating them and seeking to profit from their vulnerability. This can be seen in his actions and words.
Jesus teaches us to shun material wealth, as material wealth is a chain around our neck. He explains this by saying that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle than for a rich man to go to paradise.
Jesus teaches us that it is not the impact of our actions that matters most, but our intentions. He shows this by explaining that the poor widow who donated from her poverty donated more than the rich.
Jesus taught a progressive philosophy that is compatible with the 21st century. If we can understand the core of Christianity, we can embrace this religious heritage. To embrace our Christian heritage, we do not even have to be theistic. It is simply required for us to study the intent that Jesus, whether as a historical person, or as a literary figure, had with his words and actions.
What then about Atheism? Atheism as we encounter it in the West today is not a phenomenon that appeared out of nowhere. It is a philosophical approach to the universe that progressively grew out of Christianity. Most modern atheists are humanists, and humanism is Christianity stripped of the supernatural elements.
What we refer to as Atheism represents the rational approach towards understanding the universe, whereas Christianity represents the moral approach. The rational approach to our universe has it's own purpose, and can certainly provide certain benefits. However, it should not stand on its own. Atheism tells us to follow what our reasoning tells us.
Lastly, we have Paganism. Paganism is the worship of nature. Hence, stronger than in most other philosophies, we find the worship of pleasure, hedonism. To a pagan living in nature, asking about the "meaning of life" makes little sense, as he experiences meaning everyday, in the form of challenge, passion, excitement and danger, which those of us cursed with a modern urban existence and an office job do not, despite telling ourselves otherwise. Paganism tells us to follow our instincts.
The fact that these three philosophies and different approaches to reality are not contradictory can be easily proven. The theory of evolution tells us that we should be naturally inclined to carry out those actions which ensure the survival of our genes. The survival of our genes is made possible through altruism. If every member of our tribe is willing to sacrifice his own pleasure for the greater good of our tribe as a whole, our genes stand a greater chance.
Hence a rational, atheistic approach teaches us that altruism is fundamental to our being as a species. Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor, hence reinforcing the fundamental truth of altruism.
Lastly, Paganism teaches us to follow the will of nature, which can be found in our instincts. It is therefore the original, universal religion of mankind, before it is supplemented or replaced by newer philosophies. If we are naturally altruistic organisms, it follows that our instinct is to be good to each other, which can be found in daily life. People naturally seek to avoid causing suffering to others, even to people they do not know. Emotionally healthy people are filled with love and compassion for others.
It is our natural impulse to be good to others, which is distorted by circumstances. As an example, observing our fathers beat our mothers desensitizes us to cruelty and helps turn us into cruel people.
As a species, we are naturally allergic to authority because authority is rare in nature. However, our modern environment is filled with authority and competition between humans. As a result, our natural impulse to be good to each other is distorted, and the humiliation we feel over being imprisoned in cubicles and school desks leads to a desire to humiliate and hurt others as well.
This tragic development has been ongoing since our population numbers began to swell due to the agricultural revolution. It was no longer natural and instinctive to us to be good towards one another, as we now (rightly so) began to see each other as competition. Hence why new religious philosophies had to be born, to supplement paganism. Instead of following our instincts, these new religions teach us to restrain our instincts. A primary example is the new need to restrain our (promiscuous) sexual instincts, a message that is taught in practically every religion, except for those religions founds amongst Hunter Gatherers.
Like the rational approach, this "moral" approach is meant with the best intentions of course, but it fails to address the deeper problem: Why do our instincts fail to correspond with desirable behavior?
Why do children (and even adults) around the world feel the instinct to attack children who do not adhere to conventional gender patterns? Why do we make life difficult for those who have less power than us?
The answer to this question is that mankind has changed his environment faster than he could adopt to it through evolution. As a result, we are no longer living in an environment that is "natural" to us, and as a result, our instincts no longer make sense. As an example, our instinct tells us to choose between fleeing or fighting when we are sitting in our cubicle and asked by our boss to do his work for him, but neither of those two choices would truly benefit us in the long term. Hence, psychological stress builds that will be released on someone else.
It will require a moral, a rational as well as an instinctive approach, for our species to rediscover our balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment