th<\/sup> century. Following Lenin and the rest of the impetuous gang he planned capture and subjugation of the whole world (those who are interested in this information can be addressed to the books of Suvorov, Solonin, Beshanov). People did not realize that the war \u201cfor the Motherland\u201d is not the war to support the criminal murderous Soviet regime, it was the opposite! In the same way the participants of Crusades died \u201cin the name of Jesus Christ\u201d and did not bother to compare the Sermon of the Mount with their leaders\u2019 appeals and slogans.<\/p>\n*) pondering \u201cif this is true that the well-being of the Motherland requires or recommends to do what our commanders, presidents, governors, actors and priests give orders to do\u201d is close to criminal, or is criminal. Any doubts trigger a spume of hatred in the mouth of the most impetuous \u201cpatriots\u201d, who have encroached the right to judge what is \u201cgood\u201d and what is \u201cbad\u201d for the motherland.<\/p>\n
*) of course, there is also an ersatz-god, though, as it seems to a na\u00efve reader, it is quite difficult to personify such notion as the \u201cMotherland\u201d. During the second World War for the Soviet people there was an image of a woman from a poster \u201cMotherland appeals\u201d that played the role of a Goddess-Motherland. Popular patriotic hymns, other posters can be also considered as personification of the similar ersatz-god.<\/p>\n
*) patriotism has its Satan as well. For example, for Soviet people the role of Satan was played by a caricature image of a fat imperialist, who very often was in striped pants with bombs in his pockets.<\/p>\n
*) there is no lack of religious folklore where absolute crap about the advantages of our motherland is successfully interlaced with the same rubbish about \u201cdefective foreign patriotisms\u201d.<\/p>\n
*) there are more than enough of patriotic rituals, beginning with the military parade on the main square and finishing with the daily recitations of patriotic slogans at the start of the work day or at school.<\/p>\n
*) patriotism, naturally, protects a patriot from foreign filth. Rewards are again of a wide range from a metal badge on the collar to an access to a nose bag (a senior official elite shop) or infamous love of thankful generations to be, and the main reward was \u2013 \u201cMotherland will not forget you\u201d. What images it triggered in the mind of believers herewith \u2013 only the Motherland knows. Maybe these are the images of the pioneers that placed the flowers at a monument to honour you, or just a memorial plate, because humbleness is one of the virtues of patriots, it is not accepted to spread the word about.<\/p>\n
*) it goes without saying \u2013 there is also the concept of \u201csacredness\u201d. An insult to the Motherland is a horrible sin, and retribution can be whatever, including death (which will be justified by court as it happened in a fit of passion \u2013 indeed, the MOTHERLAND was insulted!!).<\/p>\n
*) the patriot\u2019s paradise is a strong and wealthy country. Herewith it is desirable that the neighbouring countries are poorer, not so well-developed, and better if they serve and are in awe.<\/p>\n
*) the patriot\u2019s hell is assimilation with other ethnicities and a complete loss of the national self-identification. There is so much yelling about this notorious \u201cnational self-identification\u201d, that it is hard to stop being surprised \u2013 how people do not understand that an interesting, good-looking, smart, passionate and affectionate foreigner is incomparably more attractive than a dull, grey, inert or aggressive national. Psychosis of patriotism gets to a point, when people \u201csupport ours\u201d and pay NO ATTENTION AT ALL to the personalities of who they support and against whom. The main point is what passport and what stamp is in it. This is such an obvious Nazism, supported by the communities of all countries.<\/p>\n
*) there is a huge crowd of patriot martyrs, and their stories of martyrdom, as well as \u201cLives of Saints\u201d, are perverted without boundaries, in the same way as lives of the saints. An example is the \u201cLife of Marshall Zhukov\u201d, its hundred per cent falsity is revealed in the books of Suvorov \u201cI Take My Words Back\u201d and the \u201cShade of Victory\u201d \u2013 tens of millions people have been supporting and developing this cult, built on a complete lie.<\/p>\n
Everyone can develop this idea himself, and I am going to make the most unexpected example of the most contemporary ersatz-religion. Really and truly – the holy place is never empty!<\/p>\n
Imagine an atheist, who in cold blood operates \u201csacramental texts\u201d, who has already developed a derogatory reflex to any religious lexicon and axiomatic, who is capable of the most passionate and highly reasoned speech against religion; who was born in one country and raised in another, studied in the third country, married a native of the fourth country; his father is a Buddhist, his mother teaches mathematics at a University; his son quit science and became a street singer; his daughter is building a mars rover\u2026 Imagine this most outrageous cosmopolitan that considers it\u2019s highly immoral to poke a nose into another person\u2019s personal life and persecute this person for something not affecting anybody else\u2019s life, for example, if the person has the same-sex sex with his parent, while scourging himself and imagining sexual intercourse with an underage boy and an old donkey. Such a phenomenal latitudinarian he is. And can you imagine \u2013 he is religious. He is strongly religious. Possibly, he is even a religious bigot. Do you not believe? He can even kill for his belief! You just did not recognize a new ersatz-religion, in spite of the fact that it has forced its tentacles very far and very deep. I even dedicate a whole paragraph to it. Did I intrigue you? JIt is called\u2026<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Politeness <\/b><\/p>\n
As soon as this word has been pronounced, you most likely exclaim and it\u2019s hard to explain this exclamation. It will start as surprise and even disappointment \u2013 well, what else could he think of! But it\u2019ll finish on a contemplative note proceeding into a semi cough, because the thought is very rapid and while the air is being exhaled, it surfaces all the points of the above, resulting in an indistinct unease. Indeed \u2013 does politeness have the signs of the ersatz-religion?<\/p>\n
*) Let us start with the easiest \u2013 religious intolerance.<\/p>\n
I communicate a lot \u2013 both personally on my trips (I spend about six months a year travelling from a country to a country, from town to town), and by e-mail. Many people that think they are interested in my books, e-mail me. And I came to a very simple, but true and unmistakable consistent pattern: the politer the person, the more aggressive he is. If a person is writing: \u201cHi! Listen, here in your book there is some crap, I think\u2026\u201d, or, if while approaching you he says: \u201chey, tell me what the time is?\u201d \u2013 it is clear that this person is not highly aggressive. Of course, he can be a patriot, and if the conversation concerns patriotism, his hostility can reveal, but in common communication this person can be quite an adequate conversation partner. But if the letter starts: \u201cGood day, dear Bodhi. I am sorry to bother you, but will you please answer my question\u2026\u201d \u2013 oh\u2026 this is not a good sign. And if you, god save you from it, answer his letter in an easy style, like: \u201clisten, let us talk without ceremonies, ok? As for the book, you did not understand that\u2026\u201d, then you can expect his next letter in the style of those that I have quoted from Dawkins book.<\/p>\n
If you come into a small private shop in good old Europe, for example, in Holland, where people think of themselves as freedom-loving and tolerant to any nonconformance, and there you do not answer the owner\u2019s greeting \u2013 just browse the displays and do not answer. (Warning \u2013 this is a dangerous experiment!) At first he will think you are upset with something, then that you have not heard him, and, being a civilized man, he will not beat you, he will repeat his greeting. You do not answer again. A minute later in the worst case you will be physically attacked, or kicked out, and loud insults of your lineage and your mother and country \u2013 this commotion will be heard all around the streets. You can call police, but this is useless, as the owner of the shop is right in full view of the police. Oh, of course from the point of view of law his behaviour is wrong, but who will take it seriously when the principles of the dominating religion in the country are disregarded?<\/p>\n
You get on a bus \u2013 the driver greets you. You do not answer his greeting \u2013 it may happen that you won\u2019t travel by this bus.<\/p>\n
Surprising phenomena can be observed in a neutral territory as well. I enjoy walking on the Himalayan tracks in Nepal. The surroundings, lyrical feelings, pondering over some moments encourage contemplation. Also it is interesting and pleasant to look around \u2013 stunning beautiful mountain outskirts, deep gorges, rapid rivers, clouds under your feet! But here they are, the tourists \u2013 the same as you \u2013 from Europe. From the distance of ten meters they already holla a friendly \u201cHello!\u201d or \u201cNamaste!\u201d and smile at you. Pleasant people, damn it! Not some zealots. Feeling pacified, you go on without an answer or even without a nod of your head. For the last ten minutes you have already met about ten people and greeted them, you feel a bit exhausted of it and do not want to be distracted. However, the greeting is repeated \u2013 with a surprise in the voice. Then there is a threat in the voice. Then the man approaches you and yells aggressively into your ear \u201cHello!\u201d and he looks like he is going to thump you. He can even block your way and try to make you answer his greeting. For a while you will hear behind his resentful yelps and so painfully known accusations in anything and everything, starting with homosexualism and atheism and finishing with more traditional and simple groundless assumptions about the personal life of your far predecessors.<\/p>\n
Every child is a martyr of this religion. Only try not to thank the mother after the meal or not to greet the father, or not to get up when a teacher is entering the classroom, or\u2026 there is no need to go on \u2013 you can do it yourself.<\/p>\n
*) rituals \u2013 I actually have already described them. Innumerable words and word combinations of various undertones exist for different situations, as well as motion rituals, when you have to make a certain facial expression, or gesture, or movements \u2013 this is a special language, a whole sub-culture. The faces of the Europeans are amazingly sophisticated, they look much older than people are. And their faces can instantly form a false smile or another grimace \u2013 these wrinkles, acquired in the result, produce the effect of ageing.<\/p>\n
*) the followers of this new cult did not yet acquire a uniform image of God or Satan, but every cell of the society has some candidates or temporary replacements. Some people have a portrait of the \u201ckind-hearted\u201d \u201cMother Theresa\u201d at the moment of a warm handshake. It is not important that in her Nobel Prize speech this woman called abortions the worst evil on the planet (can you imagine?) Above all \u2013 she is polite and kind-hearted. Somebody, while telling off their son, refers to Hitler, who was also very impolite and finished badly (naturally, nobody cares what Hitler was like in reality, the point is that his name is notorious and is associated with universal evil).<\/p>\n
*) this is what we call intolerance to nonconformity. A lot of time can be spent in explanations to the \u201cbelievers in politeness\u201d of commonplace truth that every person has a natural right of not answering a greeting, and nevertheless your impoliteness will evoke strong antagonism. You must be polite, there is no other way. Usually in this issue people involve certain \u201cvulnerability\u201d of those you do not show proper respect in the form of politeness, and can you imagine \u2013 hurt the good people? Especially if they are your seniors and sensitive people? People develop this pattern of feeling hurt or pity if somebody is impolite towards them, they can even be depressed, and you are the one who is responsible for that, Satan\u2019s limb.<\/p>\n
*) of course, politeness is a protection. Every religion protects, and this one also does. What does it protect from? Well\u2026 it stands for\u2026 what actually does it\u2026 Yes, it protect from impoliteness, of course! You will say \u201cgood evening\u201d, and a bit of wellness will come your way as well. Polite people truly believe that it protects them from criminals, terrorists and other evil spirits. This can be a fatal mistake. It is extremely dangerous. For decades Europeans play politeness with migrants from notorious regions with notorious mindsets towards \u201cwrong believers\u201d, thinking that their God will do all the necessary work for the migrants\u2019 assimilation. Then they are sincerely surprised when they see that it is far from assimilation, and soon they can be kicked out from their own settled places. Sensibility gets through the politeness with great difficulty, and I am afraid that time can be lost beyond retrieval.<\/p>\n
*) politeness also has hypostasis, of course, for example, \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d. No point looking up the dictionary for the meaning. There is definitely something there, only nobody has read it and hardly ever will. It is not used as a scientific term, it is mostly used by cult ministers, according to their opinion (often with sordid motives) as a flogging hammer. Did you write about some unpleasant character features of a certain nation? Like a diary of your journey? Sorry, friend, it is not politically correct. Please accept our apologies, don\u2019t feel hurt, regards to your lovely mother. Long life to your grandfather, but tear up your Satanist article and eat it, otherwise we will break your legs and cut your guts out of your belly, sorry once again.<\/p>\n
*) Lack of God in the cult of politeness can confuse, but actually this cult only begins. We cannot say much about the arising of world religions, because it has been long ago and too much has been perverted by the followers. Nevertheless, we can make a lot of assumptions with a high probability and on the basis of religions investigation, that appeared in our time and that are studied very well. I mean \u201ccargo-cults\u201d. In religions God is an accomplishing rock at the top of the whole construction, which crowns and braces this construction. I guess that modern ersatz-religions can survive without God.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The history of cargo-cults is so interesting, it reflects so much the attributes of the origin and development of ersatz-religions, that I will give quite a large quotation from the book of Dawkins:<\/p>\n
The \u201cCargo-cults of Pacific Melanesia and New Guinea provide the most famous real life example. The entire history of some of these cults, from initiation to expiry, is wrapped up within living memory. Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not really attested, we can see a whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much same way, and spread initially at the same high speed.<\/p>\n
My main authority for the cargo-cults is David Attenborough\u2019s Quest in Paradise<\/i>, which he very kindly presented to me. The pattern is the same for all of them, from the earliest cults in the nineteenth century to the more famous ones that grew up in the aftermath of the Second World War. It seems that in every case the islanders were bowled over by the wondrous possessions of the white immigrants to their islands, including administrators, soldiers and missionaries. They were perhaps the victims of (Arthur C.) Clarke\u2019s Third Law, which I quoted in Chapter 2: \u201cAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic\u201d.<\/p>\n
The islanders noticed that the white people who enjoyed these wonders never made them themselves. When articles needed repairing they were sent away, and new ones kept arriving as \u2018cargo\u2019 in ships, or, later, planes. No white man was ever seen to make or repair anything, nor indeed did they do anything that could be recognized as useful work of any kind (sitting behind a desk shuffling papers was obviously some kind if religious devotion). Evidently, then, the \u2018cargo\u2019 must be of supernatural origin. As if in corroboration of this, the white men did do certain things that could only have been ritual ceremonies:<\/p>\n
They build masts with wires attached to them; they sit listening to small boxes that glow with light and emit curious noises and strangled voices; they persuade the local people to dress up in identical clothes, and march them up and down \u2013 and it would hardly be possible to devise a more useless occupation than that. And then the native realizes that he has stumbled on the answer to the mystery. It is these incomprehensible actions that are the rituals employed by the white man to persuade the gods to send the cargo. If the native wants the cargo, then he must do these things.<\/p>\n
It is striking that similar cargo cults sprang up independently on islands that were widely separated both geographically and culturally. David Attenborough tells that anthropologists have noted two separate outbreaks in New Caledonia, four in the Solomons, four in Fiji, seven in the New Hebrides, and over fifty in New Guinea, most of them being quite independent and unconnected with one another. The majority of these religions claim that one particular messiah will bring the cargo when the day of the Apocalypse arrives.<\/p>\n
The independent flowering of so many independent but similar cults suggests some unifying features of human psychology in general.<\/p>\n
One famous cult on the island of Tanna in the New Hebrides (known as Vanuatu since 1980) is still extant. It is centered on the messianic figure called John Frum. References to John Frum in official government records go back only as far as 1940, but even so recent a myth, it is not known for certain whether he existed as a real man. One legend described him as a little man with a high-pitched voice and bleached hair, wearing a coat with shining buttons. He made strange prophecies, and he went out of his way to turn the people against the missionaries. Eventually he returned to the ancestors, after promising the triumphal second coming, bearing bountiful cargo. His apocalyptic vision included a \u2018great cataclysm\u2019; the mountains would fall flat and the valleys would be filled; old people would regain their youth and sickness would vanish; the white people would be expelled from the island never to return; and the cargo would arrive in great quantity so that everybody would have as much as he wanted\u2019.<\/p>\n
Most worryingly for the government, John Frum also prophesied that, on his second coming, he would bring a new coinage, stamped with the new image of a coconut. The people must therefore get rid of all their money of the white man\u2019s currency. In 1941 this led to a wild spending spree; the people stopped working and the island\u2019s economy was seriously damaged. The colonial administrators arrested the ringleaders but nothing that they could do would kill the cult, and the mission churches and schools became deserted.<\/p>\n
A little later, a new doctrine grew up that John Frum was King of America. Providentially, American troops arrived in the New Hebrides around this time and, wonder of wonders, they included black men who were not poor like the islanders but as richly endowed with cargo as the white soldiers. Wild excitement overwhelmed Tanna. The day of the Apocalypse was imminent. It seemed that everyone was preparing for the arrival of John Frum. One of the leaders said that John Frum would be coming from America by aeroplane and hundreds of men began to clear the bush in the centre of the island so that the plane might have an airstrip on which to land.<\/p>\n
The airstrip had a bamboo control tower with an \u2018air traffic controllers\u2019 wearing dummy headphones made of wood. There were dummy planes on the runway to act as decoys, designed to lure down John Frum\u2019s plane.<\/p>\n
In the 1950s the young David Attenborough sailed to Tanna with a cameraman, Geoffrey Mulligan, to investigate the cult of John Frum. They found plenty of evidence of the religion and were eventually introduced to its high priest, a man called Nambas. Nambas referred to his messiah familiarly as John, and claimed to speak regularly to him, by \u2018radio\u2019. This (\u2018radio belong John\u2019) consisted of an old woman with an electric wire around her waist who would fall into a trance and talk gibberish, which Nambas interpreted as the words of John Frum. Nambas claimed to have known in advance that Attenborough was coming to see him, because John Frum told him on the \u2018radio\u2019. Attenborough asked to see the \u2018radio\u2019, but was (understandably) refused. He changed the subject and asked whether Nambas had seen John Frum.<\/p>\n
Nambas nodded vigorously<\/p>\n
\u2014 \u2018Me see him plenty time\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u2014 \u2018What does he look like?\u2019<\/p>\n
Nambas jabbed his finger at me.<\/p>\n
\u2014 \u2018\u2019E look like you. \u2018E got white face. \u2018E tall man. \u2018E live \u2018long South America.\u2019<\/p>\n
This detail contradicts the legend referred to above that John Frum was a short man. Such is the way with evolving legends.<\/p>\n
It is believed that the day of John Frum\u2019s return will be 15 February, but the year is unknown. Every year on 15 February his followers assemble for a religious ceremony to welcome him. So far he has not returned, but they are not downhearted. David Attenborough said to one cult devotee, called Sam:<\/p>\n
\u2014 \u2018But, Sam, it is nineteen years since John say that the cargo will come. He promise and he promise, but still the cargo does not come. Isn\u2019t nineteen years a long time to wait?\u2019<\/p>\n
Sam lifted his eyes from the ground and looked at me.<\/p>\n
\u2014 \u2018If you can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ to come an\u2019 \u2018e no come, then I can wait more than nineteen years for John.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
*) so far there are no martyrs in the cult of politeness, but there are as many as you like candidates to Saints \u2013 both of the local level and of more significant standard.<\/p>\n
*) as in any other religion, there is a forced \u201cbaptizing\u201d of children in the cult of politeness. The concept of politeness necessity is implanted in the child\u2019s mind adamantly, consecutively and sometimes cruelly. \u201cYou cannot leave the table until you thank your mother!\u201d \u2013 do you recognize it? \u201cYou are not allowed at the table until you say \u2018good morning\u2019 to everybody\u201d. Standing in a corner, being locked in a closet, a beating (it is affectionately called \u2018to spank\u2019 in public), depriving of juice, of a walk, humiliating in front of friends \u2013 the range of punishments for impoliteness is wide.<\/p>\n
*) there are also saint writings. As a rule these are nauseatingly sugary books for children with two character boys. One is impolite and becomes a thief and a looser, while the other is good and polite and he is a hero and an excellent student. As any other sacred writings these, in general, give a child the right information regarding the consequences of neglecting the etiquette rules \u2013 he will have serious pressure from the surrounding society and it will be more difficult for him to make a career. There is an accepted strange word combination a \u201cpolite child\u201d, similar to what we say about a \u201cCatholic child\u201d and \u201cProtestant Child\u201d (sounds also odd to the population of the post-communist countries, nevertheless these expressions are widely used in other countries, and an outrageous silliness of these words is analyzed by Dawkins). On one hand this phrase is precise in the meaning that it describes a certain quality of the child, however, differently from such qualities as in \u201ca child that is interested in drawing\u201d, or \u201ca child with good capabilities in physics\u201d, the quality of politeness is a measurement of the child\u2019s aggressiveness his parents have trained. It is a measurement of how far he has come, being broken-down and given up to their pressure \u2013 he has just accepted a certain minimum that allows him to survive, or he himself has become a religious fanatic, which happens quite often with children, brainwashed with common religions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Religious disposition of people is used in trade and commerce. Quite often advertising companies take this path of creating minor ersatz-religions or fragments, and if lucky, it can bring them big success. Everybody must remember the ad of disinfectant: a fragment of a clean plate is being enlarged as if under the microscope, and oh, goodness gracious \u2013 there are heaps of swarming microbes. Sales increase successfully \u2013 micro-cult of malicious swarming microbes has been created. Advertiser \u201cforgot\u201d to advise that commonly microbes are everywhere in our life, that in general they are not malicious and even more \u2013 without them our life is impossible.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Cruel or merciful?<\/b><\/p>\n
An amazing and specific character of all large-scale religions (Buddhism is not included, it is not a religion) is a peculiar combination of extremely peace-loving and extremely aggressive elements. It is a combination of incompatible elements. A certain centaur. This peculiarity of religious \u201csacred\u201d writings is a reliable sanctuary for missionaries: \u201clook, my God is so loving! Here, look (dabbing with his finger at a certain paragraph of the \u201csacred\u201d text and covering awkwardly other paragraphs with his forearm and fingers). And also here \u2013 look (opens the book at a place marked beforehand), no, no! not there, look here\u201d.<\/p>\n
A clich\u00e9d example \u2013 is the Sermon of the Mount. Has the contemporary Mankind matured enough for declarations of the text of one and a half thousand \u2013 two thousand years old? Maybe only as declarations, even they can hardly be enounced, as you will be immediately caught in duplicity. There is no need to recite the examples of incredible cruelty in the Old Testament and the New Testament \u2013 if you do not feel like looking for them yourself, you can find the descriptions in other books. Well, what about the appeal to kill for spousal infidelity, homosexuality, disobedience to parents? Or an example of \u201csacred behaviour\u201d, when an occasional guest (a man, of course) is unconditionally protected and a virgin daughter is given as a compensation to a crowd for a cruel group rape?<\/p>\n
The Koran combines an appeal to forgive fools who do not understand that Islam is the only true religion with appeals to super incredible cruelties.<\/p>\n
The question is not in the way it happened. It is quite clear how it happened. The sacred texts were compiled during hundreds of years by various (very different from each other in all senses) people according to their interests, and the resulting mixture is explicable. The question is how did it happen that the conglomerate of categorically contradictive ideas and appeals had cemented into a consistent entity, the core of religion? There appears an association with a process of thermo nuclear synthesis. If a proton is moved up closer to another, then due to the same electrical charge they have to repel apart with a fearful energy. An explosion of an \u201catom bomb\u201d is a release of electrical energy, not \u201catomic\u201d energy. The protons of the same charge move away from each other to a distance, where the force that keeps them bound (which is called \u201cstrong interaction\u201d) decreases rapidly, and the force of electrical repulsion scatters them. There must be also some equivalent of \u201cstrong interaction\u201d that keeps so incompatible ideas and appeals bound together.<\/p>\n
I think I have found a very simple explanation for this amazing phenomenon. Please note \u2013 Christianity from the beginning of the century was a religion of slaves, of the subjugated and the humiliated. They had no power to change their life, but they had a possibility to change the position of certainty! When I draw attention to an extreme aggression of my nationals, they often have an objection in the form of an excuse: \u201cyou see how hard our life is: our income is low, we do not have enough of what we need\u201d. I objected telling about the Nepal people that live in the Himalayas in the conditions of incredible poverty. All their property is an adobe hut and a garden for rice, corn and bamboo. Maybe they simply do not know that life can be more comfortable? Yes, they know. There are European tourists passing by, Nepal owners of guesthouses, porters, guides are extremely rich by their standards. But hardly anywhere else can you find so open, warm-hearted and smiling people. You are welcome to check this, it is simple \u2013 take a flight to Katmandu, the same plane to Pokharu, a taxi to Biretanti. This is where the track around Annapurna starts (or finishes), then you walk along this track \u2013 the views are so incredibly beautiful. Take a few steps aside and visit the nearest god-forgotten village, check my statement and understand \u2013 the matter is not in the property or anything else. Happiness as it is does not exist \u2013 there exist happy people, who know their life is wonderful regardless of life being difficult.<\/p>\n
The first Christians found consolation in their religion, they created a confidence that all their sufferings are destined from above as a test followed by a reward (after death, of course). Compassion to the oppressors \u2013 this is what allows to consider life as a heroic act. It all adds up very well with the new ethic system, where love, sacrifice for the sake of love and other is admitted as the highest virtue. Of course, it is not limited only by pragmatic issues. The person who has compiled these texts, even now is the example to be followed. He definitely was an extraordinary person who could experience enlightened perceptions. But what I want to say now is that both Christianity and Islam were in the beginning peace-loving, or, as a minimum, significantly more peace-loving than the cults that existed also around. A circle of the most progressive people developed around these religions, and they aspired (more than others) towards satisfaction, good-neighborly relations, peace, creativity, friendliness. But what happened later? Reactionary surrounding was not happy with this cult. If the collector of the rip off taxes feels compassion towards those he has to strip \u2013 how much will he collect? And what about fighting \u2013 if your soldiers feel compassion towards the soldiers and the population of the enemy? All is ruined! Power drains away like mud through fingers.<\/p>\n
Even if my scenario is wrong and it has happened in a different way, it does not matter. What matters \u2013 definitely the peace-loving cult had to clash sooner or later with aggressive and subjugating cultures. For some time, of course, it would be possible to go on under the slogan \u201cif someone strikes you on the left cheek, turn to him the other also\u201d, which reminds of the legend about green grapes. But the believers of that time did not come from the skies \u2013 they were the product of their epoch, they wanted to protect themselves and this is what they did. They protected from murderers, killed in response, feeling compassion to the enemy\u2026 to achieve this kind of art, a strong wish is necessary, as well as an effective practice, persistence and determination to follow it. Even now only few people are capable of this, and it would be impossible to raise the multitudes of people for resistance under this banner. A simple choice was left for the believers \u2013 put aside the pacifism and start fighting, which means to manifest and cultivate aggression towards the enemy. Sacred texts needed to be continued, and so they were continued. Hostility is even more contagious, than tuberculosis. It is impossible to be just a little bit pregnant, and so is to be \u201cproportionally-hostile\u201d. Hatred goes beyond any established limits rapidly, especially in the conditions of a continuous war. War requires unity, and if a son is staying in a warm bed instead of obeying his father and participate in the war with \u201cunbelievers\u201d, then he is a traitor and apostate. Occurrences of this kind should be eliminated in order to defend the new religion, and the community must strengthen to survive. Thus disobedience is to be punished, this requirement increases and spreads. It results in a paradox: a cultivation of hatred, due to the necessity to protect the belief that appeals to love, otherwise aggressive and hostile environment will eliminate you. The present existing religions have won. How many of them are extinct \u2013 who knows, but these have won, but this is Pyrrhic victory. And there could not be other way!<\/p>\n
The defenders of religion refer to its \u201cgood origin\u201d, the opponents have reasons to find that there is even more of evil origin in it, if not, then at least not less. But listen, times have changed! Time passes quickly, especially during the last 200 years. We accept as monstrous medievalism things that were accepted as progress a hundred years ago. Isn\u2019t it unthinkable \u2013 referring to the texts that were written thousands of years ago and pronounce them as the everlasting values? Will you agree with fact that Hitler is an extremely amoral person? I think yes, you will. Do you realize you judge him now, while his atrocities against Humanity took place 65 years ago, and his mindset was formed even 90 years ago? Are you aware of this? Once again I will quote Richard Dawkins: \u201cIn a previous book I quoted H.G. Wells\u2019s Utopian New Republic, and I shall do so again because it is such a shocking illustration of the point that I am making.<\/p>\n
And how will the New Republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black?\u2026 the yellow man?… the Jew?… Those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go\u2026 And the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favor the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity – beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds\u2026 And the method that the nature has followed hitherto in the shaping of the world, whereby weakness was prevented from propagating weakness\u2026 is death\u2026 The men of the New Republic \u2026 will have an ideal that will make the killing worth the while.<\/p>\n
This was written in 1902, and Wells was regarded as a progressive in his own time\u201d.<\/p>\n
Will you now state that Hitler is an appalling person? If you say so, then being honest, you have to add: the same appalling are H. G. Wells and those who shared his views and participated in developing such views (which means nearly all). And what about slavery \u2013 isn\u2019t it a disgusting phenomenon? Who will answer \u201cno\u201d to this question? But it means George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were disgusting and nasty people because they had slaves. Lincoln, it goes without saying is also loathsome, as his wife\u2019s family had slaves and he put up with it. Do you understand what I mean? Something is wrong here. If we think that way, we lose any possibility of rationalizing and all past seems to be one-coloured \u2013 gloomy, dark and abhorrent. I will not expatiate now upon the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, philosophers and progressive people (their books are on the shelves of many fans of wisdom) that did not see anything bad in having sex with young underage boys openly.<\/p>\n
We can rationalize when we can differentiate. All discussions about history become a propaganda club if we forget that each epoch has had its own interpretation about \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cright\u201d. What fifty years ago was accepted as progressive now is disgusting. And it is great. It means we do not stagnate. A hundred years ago the animal world was nothing else, but an \u201cobject for hunting\u201d. Hunting game was a good entertainment and it did not matter if it was an elephant, a giraffe or a whale. Now everything has changed. For example, Norwegians arrogantly declare that hunting baby seals – is their indigenous right of activity, part of their \u201cculture\u201d. They talk about \u201cculture\u201d as of something unchanged for centuries. And they do not care about the world community \u2013 they killed, kill and they will kill these helpless playful creatures. But something has changed \u2013 the world they live in, has changed, and this world condemns and despises this kind of entertainment. When the Greenland population arrogantly refer to their \u201cculture\u201d and for the entertainment they brutally kill hundreds of dolphins (they have a celebration of adulthood, and if you want to prove you are a man, you have to kill a dolphin, brutally torturing it), they cannot expect \u201cunderstanding and respect\u201d.<\/p>\n
But it is different with religion. We have to \u201crespect and understand\u201d religion as it is, the whole of it, with its appeals to kill disbelievers. Isn\u2019t it stupid? Why not say simply: \u201cour religion is great and wonderful, but part of it is horrible, which once seemed to be good for us. We live in a new world, where we cannot kill for disobedience to the parents or behead for changing beliefs. It is impossible, criminal and disgusting. Let us erase these lines and leave only the part that we like now. Let scientists, historians and politicians study the original texts. Let them stay in libraries, why would the books stay on the bookshelves in every house? Why give them to children for reading and prohibit from having any doubts in truthfulness and sacredness of each phrase under fear of capital punishment?<\/p>\n
Those expressions of hatred in \u201csacred texts\u201d had already done their work, they helped the religion to survive in the conditions of extreme hostility, where murders and tortures were not constrained with any ethic norms at all. \u201cThank\u201d them and dump them. Thanks to this religion that brought the ideas of forgiving and compassion to the masses, today we live in the world where this religion as it has been, is now unacceptable!<\/p>\n
Let us have a look at the cults that had no aggressive elements. For example, there is a cult of the Indian Saint Ramakrishna. We have quite comprehensive stories of his life (XlX century) and there are no reasons to suspect them to be untrue. The books of his disciples and followers are full of non-contradictive evidences about his behaviour, his words and teachings. There is no aggression in it, not even a milligram of it. And what \u2013 does anybody know anything about him, except the specialists and the fans interested in Indian esotery? Is there at least one \u201cRamakrishna follower\u201d? Even in India not many people know about him, there are enough of gods there, speaking nothing of Ramakrishna. If Ramakrishna lived not in the 19th century, but let us say, the sixteenth or twelfth century, some man would come with a knife, cut his throat, slice his disciples\u2019 bellies and that would be the end of the religion. Any religion, even the one that promulgates mercifulness and compassion, must be able to defend itself to survive. Times have changed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Terrorists are evil. But what do they think? <\/b><\/p>\n
But they think they bring good. Seriously! If you do not understand it, terrorism will never stop. When you look attentively at the photos of the terrorist leaders, as well as religious leaders, vindicating terrorism, it is hard to ignore the fact that they do not look horrible. You expect to see a cross-eyed twisted face with spite, but you see the opposite \u2013 a pleasant smile, a face of a kind man, damn it! You look at him and can\u2019t stop wondering \u2013 \u201cis it him \u2013 the shittiest of the terrorists and the patron of the terrorists?\u201d But all the matter is in the fact that they are \u201ckind people\u201d as they understand it. Why not, they would ask. They do what the \u201csacred texts\u201d teach them. Tens of millions of people around them are sure that these texts are true and sacred throughout. And the rest of the world respects this point of view!! And you, the reader of this article, also respect the texts that appeal to kill unbelievers, execute disobedience of parents and behead for the change of beliefs.<\/p>\n
It is often said that terrorists interpret these texts wrongly. Those who say that must have not read these texts, as well as have not read those who read them. Though, if these books are written in such a language that millions and tens of millions \u201cinterpret them wrong\u201d, then shouldn\u2019t something be changed? Because the price of the \u201cwrong interpretations\u201d is very high. On our shelves we do not have beautiful books with a title page made of leather and embossed in gold and with stories of how to prepare the poison from the essence of the death cup amanita or explosives to kill everybody with a wrong form of nose. We do not call those books \u201csacred\u201d from the beginning to the end. We do not execute those who have doubts in the truthfulness of the books content.<\/p>\n
There cannot be a \u201cmoderate religion\u201d. Every \u201cmoderate\u201d believer who thinks of those books known to us as \u201csacred\u201d, supports by this attitude all the appeals to hatred, genocide and other stuff of this kind with his both hands raised. Even if he does not kill himself, other people do it for him, being raised on the texts, which are \u201csacred from the first to the last letter\u201d.<\/p>\n
By the way, do not think of the Soviet films about Hitler as a historical document. Hitler is not a grotesque character. He was a live personage who deceived, persuaded and thus enticed and united or forced tens of millions of people of one of the most educated European nations! And he pushed them into a horrible mincing machine of crimes. Find a way to see the real Hitler \u2013 e.g. buy a BBC film \u201cWorld in the war\u201d. There are records of Hitler\u2019s speeches. In it he does not produce an impression of a funny idiot with the moustache. It\u2019s not worth insulting tens of millions of people from one of the most educated European nations when saying that they have given up their lives, their well-being, their future and the future of their children for the sake of a caricature comedian-idiot. For them Hitler was the hope to make justice. France and Poland predatory eviscerated Germany after the First World War \u2013 so what could they expect? That Germans will take it down and forget? For Germans Hitler was kind, just and a strong leader. Like Stalin was for the Russians. Like Mao was for the Chinese. And it will go on until we say \u201cwhat was good at that time \u2013 is not good today. Times have changed\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Personality?<\/b> What is it? <\/b><\/p>\n
To understand the evolution of any social process, including the process of the evolution of religious conscience, we cannot consider an individual as a personality of integrity. It is strange, but by some unknown reason this quite simple idea is not accepted by historians and sociologists. I do not say that it is impossible to understand anything at all if you refuse to consider an individual closely, but if you want to comprehend something in an issue of your interest, then of course it is worthwhile to be aware that a unique and integral personality does not exist at all.<\/p>\n
Every day, every hour any individual faces the fact that the decisions, taken before, are not fulfilled, or sincere strong wishes suddenly seem to be stupid and empty, then some time later \u2013 again sincere and strong. At night I can anticipate that in the morning I get up early, pour a bucket of ice-cold water on myself and have a run in the crisp snow. But in the morning I convulsively pull the blanket over myself and reject in terror my previous stupid plan.<\/p>\n
A person is a combination of sub-personalities. It sounds complicated, but it is easy. Every moment there is a combination of perceptions that designates itself with the idea of \u201cI\u201d. People would get rid of a lot of the most stupid illusions and would be able to build a much happier life, if they supported the clarity that the combination of perceptions with a label of \u201cI\u201d is a different combination of perceptions that will happen to be in a day, maybe even in an hour or in five minutes. The laws of the society \u2013 criminal, moral, written or unwritten introduce the notion of \u201cresponsibility\u201d \u2013 correspondingly there is a criminal responsibility, moral responsibility and so on. Again, if we look at the issue from the point of view of evolution: if only these forms of society survive that have the notion of responsibilities, it means having them is an evolutionary advantage.<\/p>\n
Actually, this point of view is significantly simplified \u2013 and I want to mention about it briefly. For example, people have the flu everywhere. Does it mean that this is an evolutionary advantage? No, of course, it does not. To be more precise, flu is not an evolutionary advantage of people. The flu virus lives and evolves on its own, and the fact that it still exists, means its contemporary variations have survived in the evolutionary struggle. If it is advantageous for people \u2013 is a very complicated question. It seems that the flu virus is not needed at all. But about fifty years ago there were even more extravagant theories, like, for example, we did not need swamps and deserts. And indeed \u2013 what is good in a swamp? Good only for making your boots muddy. There is no need to remind of what has been done by being guided with these concepts. This is why the phrase can be even more precise: the only reason of explaining why modern societies have the notion of responsibility is the assumption that this notion of responsibility developed the societies more capable of survival and competition.<\/p>\n
It is quite easy to explain this evolution mechanism. A society lacking the concept of responsibility is hardly capable of constructive and creative activity.<\/p>\n
However, the application of responsibility concept for estimation of our behaviour is not as easy as it seems. And it is exactly due to man being a complex of sub-personalities. It would be odd to punish one person for something done by another \u2013 such communities would not be capable of living. But not punishing a person for something that has been done with his own hands under the influence of a sub personality, different from the one at the moment, also seems to be unjust. Nevertheless, such form of injustice is more sustainable. In a number of cases, by the way, the Penal Code introduces the notion of \u201csub-personality\u201d, very indefinite though, and does not even punish an individual for the misconduct of another sub-personality. These cases are extremely rare, but in certain conditions a circle of exceptions can expand up to complete chaos.<\/p>\n
Here is an example from a recent story. A man assaulted an underage boy in a stairway of an apartment block and abused him sexually. What he was doing we do not know as at that moment the boy\u2019s father \u2013 an ex professional boxer – went out of his apartment and saw it. One blow was enough to kill the man. The court exonerated the father, as he acted \u201cin a fit of passion\u201d. It is interesting, but the court sometimes exonerates from accusations a husband killing his wife, when he catches her with a lover in the spousal bed. In Saudi Arabia the court will exonerate a husband from accusations for killing the wife, if she goes outside on her own and says a couple of words to a strange man. It looks like the murderer is acquitted due to having very strong negative emotions. Though, the court also takes into account the \u201crightfulness\u201d of the source of these strong negative emotions in conformity with the dominating concepts of the society.<\/p>\n
During Stalin\u2019s time, a murderer could get an automatic acquittal if he killed a \u201cTrotskyite\u201d or a \u201ckulak\u201d (a rich peasant that had people working for him). Automatic acquittal and even an encouragement is for a man killing a military person of another country, when his country is in the state of war with that country. There are also other exclusions, but as a rule, nobody takes into account sub-personalities existing in the person, especially if the behaviour, we are speaking about, is significant from the point of view of the social institutions. And if a person wants to survive and be successful, he has to adapt to this state of the situation \u2013 his every sub-personality is responsible for the consequences of the behaviour of another sub-personality. A policeman will definitely fine you for speeding if you tell him this was your other sub-personality speeding as it was feeling temperamental and was already disgraced by other sub-personalities including the one dealing with the policeman at the moment. Most likely you will be fined plus get a travel pack to the home for the insane.<\/p>\n
Regardless of how strange it is, the described above situation is quite possible, more than that, you can face it with your every step. Naturally, there is an evolutionary sense in it, and most likely, it is in the fact that the interpersonal relationships are the battle area for the sub-personalities of one and the same person, thus they are structured and form the system of the intrapersonal power and provide personal development. Strict rules that cover the interpersonal sphere and establish responsibility regardless of which sub-personality is responsible, most likely would make impossible the development of a close-knit social environment, whether it is a family or a group of colleagues or a circle of friends. An unfaithful husband would ask his wife to forgive him, saying he was drunk and the dominating sub-personality of that moment was guilty, and the complex of dominating sub-personalities, when sober, unanimously or by majority condemned the drunken sub-personality. Actually, this situation is undesirable for the sober sub-personalities, because if the wife does not forgive her husband, only a drunken sub-personality will not care, all the others will face undesirable consequences. This is why, even though the responsibility in the interpersonal relationships does not bring immediate and irreversible changes, nevertheless repetition of the situation, especially if it happens often, can lead to these changes. So each sub-personality has preferences and other sub-personalities have to respect its values. As a result, the most successful person\u2019s sub-personalities respect each other\u2019s values.<\/p>\n
Habits always tend to pass over the limits. Hating enemies leads to hating more people, phenomena, ideas, this is why any wars are twice as destructive. At first the damage is done by the enemy, then by the country\u2019s soldiers. Analogically with respect \u2013 if the sub-personalities of a person have developed as a circle with respect to each other, which means they take into account each other\u2019s values and interests, then this pattern expands over the limits of one complex of sub-personalities. The more the person is balanced, the more integral his behaviour and the more cooperative and tolerant he is towards other people. Chaos among personalities, which definitely is achieved due to inculcating of dogmas and taboos, always leads to overflowing outside. This is why the society with dominating religious dictatorships (whether it is Christianity, Islam, communism or politeness) unavoidably generates inner chaos. On the other hand, the society consisting of people with enlightened perceptions, or people aspiring towards enlightened perceptions, is an unachievable ideal for our ordinary societies from the point of view of stability, mutual acceptance and support, psychological comfort and capability to resist destructive impacts from within and outside.<\/p>\n
But how is the balance achieved, when there is a constructive interaction between the sub-personalities of an individual? What happens exactly? What is wrong with the situation, when one sub-personality is looking after a baby, reads books and then takes a bomb and blows up a trading centre, killing himself and the future of the family, and partially \u2013 the future of his country, his religion, for the sake of which it is done? What is wrong with the situation, when a person gets a tertiary education, then another degree, becomes an expert in Geology and Archeology, generates bright hypothesis, learns from great teachers, and then suddenly weighs a Bible on one hand, on another hand all his scientific knowledge about the world, rejects the last and becomes a religious zealot (a story of this kind is described by Dawkins)? What happens, when an adult, educated, intelligent, clear-headed (please continue yourself) against all the sensibility person supports ideas of Earth existing for 10 thousand years and being created by God?<\/p>\n
If we look at a person as a complex of sub-personalities, it will be easier to understand his religious behaviour. Particularly, it is necessary to investigate how the agreement of sub-personalities about mutual co-existence is achieved and how it is broken, as well as the process of a separate sub-personality evolution and its impact on the individual\u2019s integral behaviour. A serious study of religiosity, as well as of other psychological and social issues is impossible without such investigations. But this issue is secondary within the subject of this book and I will not address it here.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
How shall we live without religion?<\/b><\/p>\n
Shall we be able to solve difficult moral issues without religion? Yes, and very well. Issues are solved in the most effective way, if we use our senses, on the basis of the facts, including scientific facts. Employment of morals dominating at the time, will also help, but will religion help? In his book \u201cThe God\u2019s Delusion\u201d Dawkins writes, while making references to outrageous extracts from the \u201csacred texts\u201d \u2013 regardless of how the modern morality developed, the Bible is not the source of it. This is an arguable statement, because most likely, the modern morality has the same sources of those forces that have participated in the introduction of its humanistic constituents (especially at the time of creation). But what part of those \u201csacred\u201d texts applies now? Extremely very small. Of course, this little part can be used in solving issues, but what for, if we evaluate the content of the Bible from the point of view of contemporary moral (and most often find this content senseless or disgusting) and not vice versa.<\/p>\n
Let us take, for example, the issue of abortions. Every time, when this issue is discussed on TV, there will be always, or most often, a priest among the experts. Why is he there, this retrograde, considering the collection of disgusting (for a person of our time) ideas, stories and appeals to be \u201csacred texts\u201d? What is so clever that this man in a cassock can add to the information of obstetricians, anesthesiologists, biologists, embryologists, surgeons, psychologists, physiologists, endocrinologists and so on? Maybe, he will remind us of the value of life, because the church is against abortions, maybe. But we know of the life value without him, as for him \u2013 he would rather have a look into the \u201csource of his wisdom\u201d and explain why there are there appeals to murder? At the same time he better tell us why his God is an appalling sadist punishing innocent people for a certain sin of Adam and Eve? Why did his God order Abraham to stab his son with a dagger? And why did the founder of religions conformed and thus deserved the approval and support of God? Did he just do what he had been ordered? This position was already adequately apprehended at Nuremberg Trial, even though it was shameful in every respect (I hope Suvorov and his followers will reveal this farce when they get into this subject), but in this part it deserved respect.<\/p>\n
In another story God makes Jephthah burn his own little daughter in the bonfire (!!) as a sign of \u201cgratitude\u201d for the victory in a battle that was a gift from God. Oh yes, we forgot that the Old Covenant story of Adam and Eve is not a matter-of-fact story, it is symbolical, – Dawkins says. Is it symbolical? That is, to produce an impression for himself, Jesus organized his own torture and execution as atonement for a symbolical sin of a non-existing person? Please tell me \u2013 isn\u2019t it madness in the worst cruel and disgusting form?<\/p>\n
No, better this Mister in a cassock goes to his companions, we will be able to do without him.<\/p>\n
How would I solve the issue of abortions?<\/p>\n
First of all, my position is that a murder of a human is categorically unacceptable. Of course, with a rare exception of the cases, when due to a person\u2019s extremely aggressive and dangerous actions, as well as extremely dangerous consequences, resulting from the behaviour of this person, the murder turns out to be unavoidable. A drunken person, whether it is from vodka or religion, assaulting another person with a knife, should be killed, if there are doubts that his victim can be rescued. Have you placed a weapon in your hands to kill, or injure and hurt somebody? Bear responsibility.<\/p>\n
But this position of mine concerns a human, not something else. Embryo is not a person. We know exactly that in the process of the development a man changes according to the evolution process. During the first month embryo is more a fish or amphibian, but not a human. Will it turn out into a human? Definitely it will. But with the same success a spermatozoid and an egg cell will also become a human. Shall we organize societies to save every spermatozoid? Let us ban masturbation, by the way, it is banned by church, more than that, the \u201csacred text\u201d gives a wonderful piece of advice \u2013 if you want to stroke in affection your penis or pussy \u2013 chop your hand off \u2013 it\u2019s better to be without a hand, than live like that \u2013 see the Gospel of St. Mark (9:43-44) (do you still want to invite a priest to discuss the issues?). Shall we sentence the bastard in case of occasional night ejaculation for involuntary mass manslaughter? This is nonsense, of course. Why then the punishment for killing an embryo is not nonsense? As Dawkins notices, then every person should be punished, if he avoids coition while having a chance of coition, because he \u201ckilled\u201d somebody who could be born as a result.<\/p>\n
This is already an old notorious story, when a medical student is asked if pregnancy should be terminated, if the father has syphilis, the mother has tuberculosis, four sons have already died of idiotism, hepatitis and Saint Vitus\u2019 dance disease. When the student says yes, the exultant professor announces: \u201cCongratulations, you have just killed Beethoven!\u201d Of course, Beethoven got into this folklore absolutely by chance, it could be anybody, as far as this story is complete nonsense from the first to the last letter. But it is interesting why na\u00efve students do not have sex immediately on a professor\u2019s desk, and do not blame him, if he is angry, in an attempted murder of a new genius composer that the world would never know of?<\/p>\n
Quite often a solution of a problem is possible to achieve without being certain in all of the constituents. The issue of abortions is one of them. Indeed, I do not know when the embryo becomes a little human. Thorough investigations are required to achieve a solution, with many highly knowledgeable embryologists and other specialists involved as experts (but not a priest in a cassock, who crosses himself just from hearing a word \u201cgastrula\u201d. In the majority of cases there is actually no necessity in banning or permitting abortions. When is it accepted safe to have an abortion? Is it month six or seven? No, of course not, this is why the most of the women make it during the first, maximum second month. Let us clarify and ask the scientists \u2013 can they tell us for sure that the embryo is still not a human during the third month \u2013 with the same degree of certainty as when they say that a week old embryo is not a human yet? Is it? What about the fourth month? Is it not? If not, then the solution may be as following: an abortion is allowed till the fourth month of pregnancy. If a woman was infantile, indifferent, dull and inert, or delayed longer, she will have to be patient for six months longer \u2013 you now have a human in her belly, not an embryo.<\/p>\n
After the baby is born, the mother that wanted to kill the embryo should be under observation by an expert group of psychologists. They have to take a decision, if this baby can remain in her care, because, on one hand, if she wanted to kill him by some reasons, these reasons still can exist. On the other hand, her doubts \u201cto kill \u2013 or not to kill\u201d could be reasoned with such factors, as fear of the future, lack of confidence and so on. She did not see her baby, only her large belly and sickness. But the situation has changed \u2013 here he is, he is a live baby, she can have a feeling towards him, and in this situation her previous wish to kill an embryo can be considered insignificant in relation to the necessary legal consequences.<\/p>\n
I accept that my position concerning abortions is not mature, and experienced obstetricians, physiologists, embryologists and other scientists can add much as their point will be supported by facts and clinical practice. In the result, the position as per abortion can be changed or get more complicated. But as a whole do you like this approach to the issue less that the approach offered by church? I want to remind that they offer us to accept the \u201csacred texts\u201d seriously from the beginning to the end, but in this case it is dangerous to let them get close to people. Or they recommend to us to accept biblical stories and commandments allegorically. Allegories are fine, but who and how interprets them? What exactly and to what degree are they allegories? This or that is the allegory? From which point to which is it an allegory? Who makes the decision? Is it the Pope? Do you want the Pope to be the one to make a decision about your pregnancy? Allegory is from the world of poetry, prose, high style and spectacular feature characters. What does it have to do with abortions?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The profoundness of belief.<\/b><\/p>\n
Quite often you can hear phrases like \u201chis belief was very deep\u201d, or \u201cdeep in his heart he was a believer\u201d. Such clich\u00e9s cause confusion, which is good for those who want to cover a lack of content with high phrases. What \u201cdepth\u201d are we speaking about? What is deep? This obscurity is comfortable, when people do not want to think and prefer to stay unaware.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, it is all extremely clear. There is such a phenomenon as \u201ccertainty\u201d. It is necessary to differentiate certainty from other perceptions \u2013 thoughts, emotions, senses. Imagine me bending over and taking something from the ground. Is it easy to be certain I have a small stone in my hand? Yes, it is. But after that I will laugh and say I have intentionally confused you, I do not have a stone in my hand. In the same way it is easy to be sure there is no stone in my hand. Everybody can practice in the change of certainty. I draw your attention \u2013 this is not the thought \u201cthere is a stone there\u201d or \u201cthere is no stone there\u201d, though the certainty is accompanied with these thoughts, of course. If you are sure, that I have a stone in my hand, even if I say \u201cI have no stone there\u201d, it will not change your certainty, because these are different perceptions.<\/p>\n
This is the crux of the matter! If a certain person by whatever reasons, whether it is the fear of opposing a common position or a wish to look extraordinary, says he does not believe in God, does it really mean he does not? No, it does not. Certainty and thoughts can be in disharmony. There may be even especially complicated schemes, when a person, being on his own, confirms he does not believe in God, and nevertheless, his same sub-personality has confidence in god\u2019s existence. The reason of this phenomenon is in \u201cinsincerity\u201d. Every person exercises in insincerity from the moment of making a choice to protect his inner world, his system of values and opinions from the external aggressive impact, and at the same time to avoid inner conflict. At first the person starts to deceive others, then voluntarily or involuntarily, he does it to himself. I did not eat that jam! I did not, I did not! To avoid punishment and look sincere to the fullest, the child forces out from his memory the fact of eating that jam. Thus he changes his confidence. The stronger the threat, the more effectively the child learns to be insincere. Regardless of my right or wrong understanding of the insincerity pattern development, every person is definitely insincere in many ways (if not in everything).<\/p>\n
There is nothing unusual in the situation, when one person (one complex of sub-personalities) says to people and to himself he does not believe in God, but in a critical situation suddenly another sub-personality either reveals a confidence in God\u2019s existence or quickly generates this certainty due to psychotherapeutic reasons. If a plane you are on starts to break up, a mechanism of self-comforting can work and generate the confidence in God\u2019s existence. If the country, you live in, is uncontrollably falls into chaos of the dictatorship and zealotry, then the sub-personality, which is revealed under fear impact, can generate the confidence in God.<\/p>\n
So there is no depth of a heart for nesting the belief in God. There is a certainty in God\u2019s existence, which is generated, like many other perceptions, by a person depending on the situation. Somebody may think that the psychotherapeutic effect of this kind is good. Negative emotions can dement, while if a belief in God is generated, one can be quiet. Maybe this is right. I think it\u2019s up to one\u2019s choice. But to make a choice, it is necessary to see what it is like. What\u2019s there on each pan of the balance scales? Generating confidence in God pacifies, and a calm person is capable of more effective survival. It is definitely right. But let us not forget the same calmness can be relaxing as well. We know that a stressed person is capable of sometimes beyond the impossible. Relaxing and \u201centrusting yourself to God\u201d is also quite possible consequence of the belief in God. It is also good to remember that insincerity as it is \u2013 is an extremely dangerous disease.<\/p>\n
But have you noticed the change of the subject? We already discuss if the belief in God is good or pointless in critical situations. Meanwhile we have already found the answer to the question of this paragraph \u2013 \u201cthere is no depth of the heart which would accommodate the belief in God\u201d. There is something different \u2013 people automatically generate blind certainty in God\u2019s existence when the situation is critical.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Respect my political correctness.<\/b><\/p>\n
We can often hear appeals to respect various beliefs. These appeals are so widespread and they have become such an essential attribute of any discussions concerning religion, that nobody even contemplates \u2013 but what is the actual meaning in the phrase? What does it mean \u2013 \u201crespect religion\u201d? As long as nobody knows the exact meaning, this word became a kind of a club to bash to the right and left. Quite often there is in one hand a club \u201crespect of religion\u201d and in another no less unclear \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d. Let us be politically correct. Ok, let us. But how is it? It is not clear, because there is no definition. And as soon as religious people hear some cool-headed phrases about religion, they immediately bash their club: \u201cnow, let us respect religion!\u201d<\/p>\n
Let us make sense. Every religion has something of its own, and it is often something opposite. Well, there are some similar points, for example, hatred to the followers of other beliefs is an integral part of all religions, both in \u201csacred texts\u201d and in behavioural patterns. But if we compare the Koran, Talmud and the New Testament, it is not hard to see the difference. Though, we do not need to look for this difference. The believers themselves are absolutely sure in the principal difference of religions and it is proved by the fact that the followers of one belief cannot be the followers of another. There is also a religion stipulating death for the change to another religion. It means they find the difference is so huge.<\/p>\n
It also means that when they appeal to \u201crespect\u201d religion, it is obviously not the appeal to \u201caccept\u201d it, which is not the appeal to believe in all religions. Let us see how this \u201crespect\u201d is manifested practically. It happens in the following way: priests of different religions meet together in front of the TV camera and claim: \u201cmy religion is true, all the rest are misapprehended. Nevertheless (addressing his neighbor-priest), I treat you with respect though you believe in your inadequate religion. The neighbor, addressing the first priest, says the same. All applaud, go home and continue to inculcate ideas of their religion being the only true one, and all the rest are wrong. It means that respect is the acceptance of the right of people for a mistake. Actually, the first priest says to the second that he is tolerant of him believing in the wrong religion, and the second priest says the same to the first.<\/p>\n
Thus, an atheist will be considered as \u201crespectful\u201d to a religion, if he, while saying everything he thinks of it, still agrees with the right of others to make mistakes and have a system of judgment that seems wrong for other people. Well, it is impossible not to support this position. Standing up for your point of view while supporting a position of non violence \u2013 everybody can choose the system of views and should not be persecuted for that.<\/p>\n
And everything seems to be good.<\/p>\n
But not all is good.<\/p>\n
And what about the sacred texts that urge to spit on the graves of wrong believers, curse their mothers and kill those, who changed their belief? Excuse me, something is not right here. How can a believer agree to the principal of freedom of faith (or freedom of not believing) and continue thinking of himself as a follower of the religion, built on \u201csacred texts\u201d that express extreme hostility and intolerance towards non-believers? It results in a lie. Window dressing. This principle does not bring peace, because it can be shared only by atheists, who do not have \u201csacred texts\u201d appealing to hate non-believers. But when the religious people speak of following this principle, they just deceive themselves. Or they deceive others.<\/p>\n
I will not write in detail about political correctness, as it relates to religion only indirectly \u2013 particularly, it is the same type of self-deceit (or deceit). Being politically correct at our time means to prohibit thinking, more than that, speaking and writing about the differences between various nationalities. Individuals can have their peculiarities, this is what you are allowed to think about, but do not dare if it concerns nations. Ignoring this ban can result in imprisonment. Meanwhile, this is stupid. Living in one country, people mix and acquire similar qualities that often are different from a typical national character. Isn\u2019t it obvious? Before our politicians prohibited thinking about national special features, it was a subject of many contemplations and writings, and it did not cause any extremism. Actually, a whole science is now banned \u2013 ethnography. Instead of fighting against terrorism and extremism, the world community fights those who think and speak of national character features (even if there is some misunderstanding). What does it lead to \u2013 prohibition to think? Oh, we know it very well \u2013 it results in narrow-minded doctrinarianism and shauvinism. Let us remember what happens to the communities where thinking is not allowed and ask if we want to walk twice into the same water. The Western, allegedly democratic, community stamps the forbidden subjects one after another, more than that, it is not an \u201cunspoken ban\u201d, but the responsibility that is criminal! Even without taking time to remember I can name a few subjects that are banned from thinking about and from discussions, if not conformed, it will result in imprisonment or persecution, like: \u201cis it true that so many Jews have been killed by Nazis\u201d, \u201cwas Hitler really a villain\u201d, \u201csex with underage children \u2013 is it really to be banned\u201d, \u201cis that true that all nations are equal\u201d. There are, of course, peculiarities in every country. In China the questions like \u201cis that true that Tibet is a part of China according to its own free will or has it been occupied by the Chinese\u201d, or \u201cmaybe this is true that the Chinese death camps have thousands of Tibetan monks, that are brutally tortured there\u201d unambiguously result in imprisonment. In Turkey it is better not to ask \u201cis this true that Turks have committed genocide against Armenians?\u201d In Russia god save you from asking a question \u201cmaybe the Soviet people, like the Nazis, aimed to capture the whole world and together with the Germans unleashed the Second World War?\u201d<\/p>\n
Banned subjects increase and multiply. The key is to start. And it has been already started, it has its attractions. I want to remind that this is very dangerous. Do you remember: \u201cwhere books are being burnt, soon people will be burnt\u201d? Thus banning thinking and discussions is the contemporary analogy of burning books. It means if we do not cancel these bans, soon people will start being burnt.<\/p>\n
Why are these subjects forbidden? It is because they seem to be dangerous: like, if somebody writes that by his opinion a certain nation has some dislikable qualities, it will cause extremism. This is wrong. Direct appeals to violence lead to extremism, but not even they do. Extremism is caused by those who take up guns. Those who contemplate on comparative qualities of nations, are not criminals, as well as not criminals are even those who urge to kill. Criminals are the people with guns. This is the position that is normal and educational: \u201cwas it your friend who urged you to take the gun? This is his right. Was it him who said that all\u2026 should be killed? That\u2019s his opinion and we will not touch him. But you have taken the gun \u2013 and you will be sentenced as you deserve\u201d. Such a policy would correctly highlight the key points: a terrorist is not the one who is doing the thinking or urging; it is the one who COMMITS the extremist acts. This way we will be able both to fight against the extremism and have the freedom of speech (which will enable to convey the diversity of opinions to the potential terrorists and, possibly, confuse their fanatical confidence in the rightness of their approach).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Buddhism is not a religion, there is no God. <\/b><\/p>\n
This is a familiar phrase, isn\u2019t it? I even mentioned it previously in the text, and most likely, it has been \u201cdigested\u201d without objections.<\/p>\n
Usually this statement is supported by the fact that Buddha is not God, but a man, who achieved enlightenment without the help of gods, due to self-development.<\/p>\n
It sounds good, but it is (self-) deceit. Buddhism is a religion and it is full of gods, different spirits, demons, sacred texts, rituals, innumerable rituals and dogmas, there is also dislike to non-believers and so on and so forth. By the way, according to the doctrine, Buddha Gautama experienced temptations similar to those that the saints of other religions had, but so to say, he did not bite the apple. Actually, Buddhism has the doctrine of possibility to achieve enlightenment without gods, due to the spiritual practice. But this is an abstract doctrine, mixed-up with others, supporting submission of human willpower. This way or the other way, but Buddhists behave exactly like believers of any other confession, thus the question if Buddhism is a religion, has only a historical, philosophical and suchlike scientific character, but not practical, because Buddhists are believers in the same way as Orthodox Christians, Shiite and Seventh-Day Adventists and so on.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I just believe in God.<\/b><\/p>\n
Sometimes it happens that somebody says: I am not a Buddhist, not a Muslim, not a Christian and so on \u2013 I just believe in God and that is all. It looks so peaceful and wonderful \u2013 this person is not devoted to \u201csacred texts\u201d, not confused with doctrines of hatred towards non-believers, and he has a very peaceful disposition: \u201cif you believe in some God \u2013 it\u2019s ok, I also believe in my God\u201d, or \u201cif you do not believe in any God \u2013 it\u2019s ok, I do believe\u201d.<\/p>\n
Such peacefulness seems to be praiseworthy\u2026 until you ask this person a question: does he think the \u201csacred texts\u201d of different religions are rubbish (or even more than that \u2013 extremist texts)? Can he categorically say that a lot of quotations from various \u201csacred\u201d books are disgusting, antihuman and criminal? Do you think he will say \u201cyes\u201d? Please try.<\/p>\n
If he says no, it means he with \u201chis cap in hands\u201d approves of all what has already been written above about the amazing qualities of the \u201csacred texts\u201d, and who is he after this?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Is it a result or a belch?<\/b><\/p>\n
There is one issue necessary to investigate and comprehend in order not to make an elementary mistake. When we speak of evolution, we must understand that evolution is a veeeeeeeery long process, while our life and the life of the culture that we know of, is very short if compared to evolution. A simple example will illustrate it. Not so long ago \u2013 in the middle of the 20th<\/sup> century, Australian aborigines or Philippine sea gypsies or African bushmen have been considered to be undeveloped, not in the sense of the lagging civilization, but undeveloped biologically, from the evolutionary point of view. However, the contemporary fashion for everything \u201cethnic\u201d brings the fact that some representatives of those nations are involved in the Western culture from childhood. For example, it can happen through an adoption. When such children from an \u201cundeveloped tribe\u201d come to an ordinary school and get the common conveyor of the European education and upbringing, what\u2019s amazing \u2013 these children are as clever as Europeans. They do not differ. This huge difference between the civilizations has no significance from the point of view of our evolutionary development. The mind of a Bushman is ready to grasp sciences, manners and other attributes of civilization in the same way as the mind of a European. Possibly, if we took a child from a tribe, existing 50 thousand years ago, then maybe there would be some difference. Though I think that even this period of time is not enough, maybe half a million years is required to see the evolutionary gap.<\/p>\nWhat does it mean? If the evolution pace is measured by thousand year steps, and our civilization changes nearly every 50 \u2013 100 years, and the history we know of is not longer than 6 \u2013 8 thousand years, after that this is more archeology, than history \u2013 this leads to an important conclusion: not everything existing for a few thousand years, is an evolutionary advantage. With the same success it can be a \u201cbelch\u201d of the evolution, i.e. the manifestation of the evolutionary mechanism, developed in absolutely different conditions. Dawkins makes a very simple, but illustrative example, and I will refer to it as well. Possibly, I should have started this paragraph with this example, but I want the example to be the starting point for the clarity, which is evidently not sufficient for the moment.<\/p>\n
Moths fly into the fire and burn. It happens everywhere \u2013 in all countries, everywhere on the Earth. It has always been like that and it will be for a long time yet. If we forget that evolution is a veeery long process, then it\u2019s possible to make an allegedly obvious, but still a wrong statement: \u201cthe need of self-burning\u201d is an evolutionary advantage. Indeed \u2013 if there are on the Earth only such moths, then this suicidal quality is their evolutionary advantage. But in reality it is different. Moths have a system of night orientation. It is organized in such a way, that the insect chooses the direction of the night migration with the moon light falling at the angle of 30 degrees. They have ocellus eyesight and technically it is very simple \u2013 if light gets into a proper eye cell, it means this is the right direction. Possibly, it has been for millions of years. But then the humans appeared, they learnt to use candles and fires \u2013 there appeared much night light on the planet. As for the moths with the developed mechanism, working for millions of years, they have not yet noticed us, and their mechanism works well. The moth flies at the angle of 30 degrees towards the fire and it brings the moth spiraling into the fire.<\/p>\n
Hence there is a simple conclusion. As far as all the known cultures have religion, it does not mean at all that religiosity is an evolutionary advantage. Something else could be the evolutionary advantage, but in the contemporary conditions (i.e. as minimum, during the history, known to us) this \u201csomething\u201d took the form of religiosity. Possibly, once we will find an answer to this question, and I tend more towards this variant, because, from my point of view, religiosity is so obviously destructive, that it just cannot be an evolutionary advantage. It is extremely hard to imagine that something causing continuous cruel wars, even more cruel feuds, consuming huge resources and time for various rituals (imagine at least how many lives, resources and all other was needed to build the pyramids), something suppressing common sense and giving the source of any type of hypocrisy and obscurantism, could become an evolutionary advantage? It is very difficult to imagine.<\/p>\n
In the case with moths we have an event that caused this \u201cburp\u201d of the evolutionary mechanism \u2013 appearing of humans and expansion of the open fire. Possibly, we will find an event that sourced the \u201cburp\u201d of the evolutionary process under the name \u201creligiosity\u201d. One of the variants of such an event can be speech. When people learnt to speak, and not only speak, but also listen, they started having thoughts, because thoughts are nothing else, but a recollection of speech. We as if speak \u201cinwardly\u201d, i.e. imagine or remember speech. Some scientists make an assumption, that in the beginning people thought somebody was talking to them in their minds. The thoughts were perceived as the speech of another being. And this is what activated religiosity on the basis of some other human\u2019s quality, which is not known to us for the moment.<\/p>\n
Of course, it is hard to say anything definitely, but it is significant to be aware, that if there is something that exists all around, it still does not mean in itself to be an evolutionary advantage.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
What pig ruined everything?<\/b><\/p>\n
But indeed \u2013 how did it happen that religion became such a retrograde, dogmatic and hypocritical force? How did it happen that the word \u201ctemple\u201d has become extremely far from association with \u201cbonking\u201d, \u201csucking penis\u201d, \u201cplaying\u201d? Our contemporaries (especially those suffering a lack of an education) think it has always been like this. But let us remember it has NOT ALWAYS been this way. In ancient Rome there were temples, where priestesses (vestals) had sex openly. It was legal and it was their job. The same was in ancient Greece. Both in Greece and Rome sex was more open than now, including sex with underage children. Open a book of Plutarch, for example, and there you will find phrases, like \u201csuch and such person was a lover in his early youth of such and such person, and when he grew up, he found a preteen for himself\u201d. There was not even a hint in these texts that these people thought of themselves as victims. Look at the Hindu temples in India or Nepal (for example, the temples of Khajuraho or in Patana, Kathmandu) \u2013 they are decorated with a lot of bas reliefs with the images of people having sex, and they have SUCH sex, that contemporary people are even afraid to look at it \u2013 there is sex of three and four people together, and anal and oral sex and whatever possible. Millions of tourists come to these temples, look at them, there are cards and statues with the sexual images from bas reliefs in the shops.<\/p>\n
Questions arise: who has ruined it all? If hundreds of millions of Hindus worship these temples as holy shrines, and billions of people \u201crespect\u201d their religion \u2013 why don\u2019t they have sex as openly as shown on the bas reliefs?<\/p>\n
Usually the answer is this: well, you know, these are symbols, these are the images of cosmic laws in such allegorical forms. And again we are back to the same point \u2013 a very comfortable way of cheating \u2013 whatever is good for us, we pronounce it to be true. Whatever we do not like \u2013 is allegory. But what attribute proves these scenes to be allegories? Is it written there that these are allegorical pictures? No, it is not. They just want us to believe, as if they know for sure \u2013 this is an allegory.<\/p>\n
Let us remember the ancient Slovenian pagan cults. There was also so much sex there, more than enough, and in such forms, including group sex by whole villages, that it will seem extremely disgusting to our contemporary hypocrites.<\/p>\n
There is also sometimes an argument, that yes, it did exist, but these were ancient and imperfect cults and they gave way to the modern, perfect and true religions. It means they want to ensure us, that the happiness of living, the pleasure from sex \u2013 is outdated and wrong, but suppression of sex, constant feeling of guilt, dispirited sexuality that finds a release in the form of hatred, irritation, jealousy, illnesses and early ageing, as well as hostility towards disbelievers and other so called wonders \u2013 it means it\u2019s all right and true?<\/p>\n
And who created this idiotism?<\/p>\n
What sensible person will agree to it?<\/p>\n
What pig ruined all this and what pigs try to keep it this way at this present time?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
What for, man? Hey, man, are you silly? <\/b><\/p>\n
Quite often you face the opinion that God punishes people for their sins of miscreance through illnesses, different disasters and wars. You do not have to go too far to find examples \u2013 popular priests from different countries, starting with USA and finishing with Iran, menace with terrible punishments for atheism and tolerance towards atheism, for sins and suchlike (see Dawkins book with striking examples).<\/p>\n
For example, there is a wide spread opinion, according to which God has punished people with AIDS for homosexualism. This is odd. Homosexuals are approximately 1% of the population, but anybody can get AIDS, e.g. in the process of a blood transfusion, of dental treatment, during sex with your wife, and even during the birth from a mother. What is it \u2013 is it the example of the God\u2019s supreme justice? What about us \u2013 should we also become as just as him? If one person from a village stole \u2013 does it mean the whole village is to be culled? We have got through all this, enough, we do not want it any more. There is a strong wish to ask this God: hey, man, are you stupid? Or are you a sadist? What idiot has come up with such a God? And, to put it mildly, what sort of people support such a God?<\/p>\n
It is accepted that we had a country where atheism triumphed \u2013 the USSR, so God punished it for atheism through horrible wars \u2013 the Citizen war and the Second World War. The question, actually, is the same: man, are you stupid? Why then did the countries with the well-developed religiosity, like Japan, USA, England and others, lose so many people? Why have so many Jews been killed, plus in such a barbarian way in the gas chambers? They are all Judaists. Or is their religion \u201cwrong\u201d?<\/p>\n
Sometimes they threaten: atheism leads to bloodshed, dictatorships and so on. But it\u2019s so obvious that it\u2019s not atheism leading to it, but hatred, superiority complex, racism, avarice, dullness. Do you know what was written on the buckle of each German soldier in the Second World War? Was it, maybe, \u201cthere is no God\u201d? It was the opposite \u201cGod\u2019s with us\u201d.<\/p>\n
Let us remember the medieval history of Europe. Were there many illnesses? There was a hell of a lot of illnesses! People just died out up to the beginning of the 20th<\/sup> century. In the middle of the 19th<\/sup> century every 3rd<\/sup> \u2013 5th<\/sup> woman died of childbirth!! And what about plague? Tuberculosis? Poliomyelitis? Cholera? Was that not enough? By the way, these were the times of mass religiosity. And what was the position of the church? Did they support the work of Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Spallanzani, Koh? Like hell they did.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
What is going to be like without religion? <\/b><\/p>\n
As I have said earlier, if there is no religion, prohibiting to be sensible, to have doubts, to have sex and do sciences, then we will stop to invite those odd personages from the far past for TV discussions about the evil of abortions, and rely on scientific facts, sensibility, our own perceptions of justice and morality. Realization of our conclusions will be regulated by law, which also, in turn, will be affected by our perceptions. A wholesome system will be created, and our society will go on evolving.<\/p>\n
As for me, from my point of view the definition of morality includes all that can encourage experiencing enlightened perceptions (EPs), all that leads to more people, experiencing EPs and aspiring to experience them more often and more of them, more intensive EPs, open new EPs; assist other people to experience EPs, experience and realize happy wishes, accompanied with anticipation; achieve clarity and stop supporting dullness in the form of groundless certainty; enjoy, whether it is enjoyment from food, or sauna, or sex of any kind, and again \u2013 assist other people live enjoying life. See details in my book on the website www.bodhi.ru<\/p>\n
Did people guess earlier that sensibility and EPs will become a reliable landmark in the life of a man after ignorance and aggression are eliminated? Of course they did. Here is, for example, a quotation from Thomas Jefferson \u2013 the founder of America:<\/p>\n
\u201cShake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find inducements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you\u201d.<\/p>\n
This morality includes the contemporary down-to earth morals, without any contradictions and confers the meaning to it, because when a person experiences EPs, he wants people, as many as possible, to enjoy life; because the person that has achieved or is achieving EPs wishes it due to his higher degree of freedom from dogmas, cruelty, aggression and other negative emotions, not under pressure, he will never force his morals. He knows for sure \u2013 EPs are never experienced forcibly. They can be achieved only due to a happy wish and in the conditions of maximal freedom of self-expression, creativity, pleasure, comfort and fondness towards other living creatures.<\/p>\n
If my morality conflicts with the present legislation, I will probably try to make changes in this legislation, and while it is as is, I will comply with it or move to another country, where my morality does not contradict the legislation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Safety issues It is quite dangerous at our time to discuss the issues relating to religion, because peace-loving believers rather often try their best to pique or even destroy those who go inexcusably too far in their thoughts about religion. As a ludicrous example I will cite a slogan that the followers of some religion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8235,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6860","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Safety issues It is quite dangerous at our time to discuss the issues relating to religion, because peace-loving believers rather often try their best to pique or even destroy those who go inexcusably too far in their thoughts about religion. As a ludicrous example I will cite a slogan that the followers of some religion […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Selection of Attractive States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T13:48:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"120 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/\",\"name\":\"Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-12-16T03:57:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T13:48:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Evolutionary Role of Religion\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/\",\"name\":\"Selection of Attractive States\",\"description\":\"Experimental Psychology\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States","og_description":"Safety issues It is quite dangerous at our time to discuss the issues relating to religion, because peace-loving believers rather often try their best to pique or even destroy those who go inexcusably too far in their thoughts about religion. As a ludicrous example I will cite a slogan that the followers of some religion […]","og_url":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/","og_site_name":"Selection of Attractive States","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T13:48:25+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"120 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/","url":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/","name":"Evolutionary Role of Religion - Selection of Attractive States","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-12-16T03:57:43+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T13:48:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/evolutionary-role-of-religion\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430","item":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Evolutionary Role of Religion"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/","name":"Selection of Attractive States","description":"Experimental Psychology","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8235"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6860"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6860\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20728,"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6860\/revisions\/20728"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bodhi.name\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}