Copyright © 2011, Gun Lap
After an experience in an abusive group, the victim needs to understand how he got himself into that predicament in the first place. He needs to ask questions like: How did this happen to me? Whose fault was it? Answering those questions can help prevent being deceived again.
Well, there is a lot of blame to go around. According to the “buyer beware” principle, the victim is partly at fault for being too trusting and deceivable. But the main culprits are the liars who trapped him. We don’t put victims of other frauds (e.g. financial fraud) in jail even if they were naive. We only put the perpetrators in jail.
I put together a list of people, institutions, and organizations who share some of the blame. A few of the items on the list require a bit of explanation, which can be found in the footnotes.
In no particular order, here are some of those who deserve a share of the blame.
- All those ministers who lie (no shortage of those).
- All those ministers who are opinionated (there are a lot of those too!).
- Downright bullheaded ministers who have seen proofs they are wrong but refuse to accept them (there are a lot of those too!).
- Governments, IF they legally protect the “religious rights” of dishonest church leaders to lie and deceive, but not those of the abused church members to not be lied to and not be robbed of their time and money (see footnote 1).
- Schools and parents for not teaching children to recognize scams, deceivers and sociopaths.
- Schools and parents for not teaching children how to think more logically (what we get is mostly memory training).
- Parents for leaving education to inept and politically correct schools.
- Parents, if we grew up in a Church of God.
- A ruthless, crazy, global political system that offers no security and threatens the safety of everyone on earth (see footnote 2).
- Corrupt, predatory, sick societies that make people long for a better world (the blame here must be shared by everyone to one degree or another, but mostly by those who are the most corrupt and predatory).
- Corrupt mainstream churches that make people seek better alternatives.
- Mainstream churches with no inspiring vision, that make people seek better alternatives.
- Mainstream churches that cannot properly refute many claims made by leaders of unorthodox sects.
- The people who wrote the books of the bible, the scholars who defend it, and the preachers who promulgate it.
- The news media for scaring people with the idea that “runaway global warming” is producing abnormal weather that is only going to get worse (see footnote 3).
- The victim himself for being too trusting (gullible) and maybe too hasty, not doing enough research beforehand.
- Church members who knew there were serious problems and should have got out a lot sooner, but set a bad example by continuing to attend, and helped the churches to deceive others by continuing to support the churches financially.
Well, that’s my list. I hope I didn’t miss anything major.
In my view, most of the blame goes to those who knew, or should have known, that they are promulgating error but did little or nothing about it.
Footnotes:
1. Actually, certain religious frauds are already illegal. It might be possible to sue some of these churches in some jurisdictions. I don’t know if that is possible, but I wouldn’t rule it out. It’s been done before, e.g. the Church of Scientology has successfully been sued.
I’m not talking about making doctrinal errors illegal, just outright frauds, e.g. publishing altered versions of someone’s writings without informing the reader of the alterations or why they were made. If that’s not illegal, it should be.
By the way, if some church publishes material with the author’s name on it (e.g. Herbert Armstrong’s name) and they misquote the author by altering his words, is that not bearing false witness to what he said and stood for? How can a church can justify such actions? Yet it is our understanding that some of Herbert Armstrong’s works have been altered and republished without the readers being told about critical doctrinal changes that were made.
2. The insecure global system makes people seek safety in religion. It also makes people uncertain of the future, which makes prophecy seem attractive because prophecy claims to explain where world events are leading and the basic causes behind them.
3. After spending over 100 hours (estimated) researching “global warming” I’m now convinced most of what we hear is hype. Many religious people think weather is getting worse and that this is proof that the end is near, as prophesied by Jesus. Therefore I blame the media for unwittingly creating end-time hysteria. Their intent often seems to be to exaggerate what they think is a real phenomenon in order to “save the planet”, but the effect is to play into the hands of apocalyptic groups. Many of the increased costs from bad weather are just due to monetary inflation and increased populations in urban areas.
Personally I blame the cults and the leadership for this. Taking someones enthusiasm for something and exploiting it.
Try this for starters: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2003/3.html#Heading79
The lawyers: http://www.bennettblummd.com/id44.html
Don’t forget the tab on the left of the page when you go to the above address. Click on “Undue Influence”
It all started with that con man, Herbert Armstrong, who preached a few things with which people agreed. Conservatives wanted “Law and Order” so they listened to Herbert Armstrong’s preaching on the Ten Commandments. What he said made sense to them.
The liberals, in the sense of wanting a utopian world where everyone is happy and prosperous, were attracted by Herbert Armstrongs preaching about the Wonderful World Tomorrow of peace and prosperity.
The conspiracy theorists heard Herbert Armstrong’s preaching about what was wrong with the world around us, which just confirmed their beliefs about the conspiracies they believed (GTA was a master of this).
For the lonely and alone, Herbert Armstrong appeared to be the kindly grandfather figure who would fill the void in their life.
In each case, and in many others, Herbert Armstrong struck a responsive chord in his listeners, and because he told them what they already believed or wanted to believe, they took it hook, line and sinker to accept all the rubbish and excess baggage he sold them on.
It is then that con really begins because there was also social structure of kooks already indoctrinated in the nonsense to bolster the corrupted beliefs of the acolyte indentured into the Ambassador College Prison Experiment replete with guards and prisoners. This social order tended to keep people centered on the insanity of the extreme beliefs in the the cult. The people got additional reinforcement from the nutcases which surrounded them early on (and I remember how extreme they were in the 1960s and the shock it was to try to reconcile their behavior with what I knew to be true).
Once the newbie is reeled in, they make an investment. Once they spend money on something, the con insures that they will increase investment to assure payoff. This is particularly true with it appears that the investment is about to fail: The usual strategy of the conned is to sink even more money into something in the hope that it will pay off (this was covered in a 1970s Psychology Today article).
So what happens, you may ask, when someone becomes disaffected with a particular Armstrongist cult and seeks a different one more to their liking? I can answer this from tough experience.
Yes, you had an investment, but that’s gone as you enter into a new sub cult. All the people, all the goodwill and especially your standing in the group has been wiped clean. You have to prove yourself all over again. Unless you are rich or politically well connected or have something the cult really wants, you will be on the bottom for years, treated with contempt as not knowing the ropes and being less spiritual, lacking knowledge in the particular nuttiness of the psychotic delusional distorted perceptions of the current cult leader, abused and neglected (which is the same thing). You are there as a cash machine. You do not have standing. You will not hold church office. And you will be spurned if you need and ask for help from the cult. Or you may find as others have, the cult will start to support you in, say, going to court, and then drop it on the eve of your appearance. That happens over and over. Maybe — just maybe — the cult might consider sending you an anointing cloth if you can show that you are really sick unto death and that you have the faith to be healed (which would mean you really didn’t need the cloth in the first place).
Cults are hard cruel places without redemption, totally narcissistic, cold, calculating and a total con which only benefits those in the top of what amounts to a Multi Level Marketing Ponzi Job akin to the Mafia.
The Armstrongist cults have no socially redeeming qualities and act as a corrupting agent to turn normally moral ethical people into fanatical obsessive compulsive people who are futiley attempting to do the impossible to be perfect according to internally conflicting rules, laws and standards.
Worst of all, Armstrongism is totally unscientific, which means that if you follow it, you are a complete unscientific fool and the only solution is to abandon it to slowly recover from the damage it has done.
As a lad in the 1950s, I read “Earth, Wind and Fire” several times to cover the history of the 4.5 Billion years of earth history, evolution and science in general. I studied nuclear physics in my pre teens. I had hobbies in chemistry, electronics and taught myself to cook (with the able help of Betty Crocker). I subscribe to “Science” magazine in high school, read the World Almanac and read about science as much as possible and formulated my own scientific experiments.
What a waste of time.
Because, when my brother got me involved with Herbert Armstrong and the Radio Church of God, all science and technology had to be thrown out the window: Armstrongism is unscientific, disproved by science and science is anathema to it. I had to suspend my belief in physics and was forced in a cult situation, cut off from my family, to adapt to really nutty ideas I sensed were utterly wrong, but had to believe them anyway. Herbert Armstrong made it clear he was anti science and against those “educated” people.
I did everything I could to adapt.
In the end, it was extremely strange and unnatural. It made no real sense. It was totally delusional.
And I was told continually in so many ways that I was always wrong — by people who were wrong.
It’s hard to go from scientific thinking to magical thinking: It messes with your mind.
And when you find out what these con artists have done — you end up really ticked, especially when, like Dixon Cartwrite did to me, tell me that I’m wrong and that sincere people believe in British Israelism and why can’t we just have a polite discussion about it.
Rubbish.
Your comment reminds me of a film I watched the other day. It is as believable as Armstrongism.
Douglas,
It was in this cult of HWA’s that I discovered the inhumanity of those who hide in churches, dressed in three piece suits and whom spewed out words of piety while performing acts of violence and utter wickedness.
Since this blessing on the world (January 16th, 1986. HWA’s death) these cretins continue to crank out unregenerate, exploitative upstarts in the name of God. Think of the lives that could be saved if more former members would start websites that discussed the programmatic foundations of the various cults and their ostentatious manifestos in detail.
Take Rod Meredith. There is not one site wholly dedicated to exposing the false prophecies of this man. The closet we have is “Living Armstrongism”
who has studied the man in some detail.
http://livingarmstrongism.blogspot.com/search/label/Meredith
Below, we have several dealing with false prophet Ron Weinland.
“Ronald Weinland – The Prophet Who Failed.”
“Jack said
“Ronald Weinland twists the words in the bible for personal gain.”
“False Prophet Ronald Weinland
Don’t Drink the Flavor Aid Served by False Prophets”
Back to Armstrongism:
It is interesting that the subservient believed that Herbie was a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to light the torch of human rights.
I profess that it can be safely said that my blood still runs cold whenever I spot these parasitical organizations preying on people’s emotions of fear, envy, and resentment. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way these people think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, outside academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation.
In Armstrongism, the individual is encouraged to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed with the group, reviling everything and everyone outside the group in the most obscene terms, dragging them through the filth of the basest possible outlook. In the end, for the membership, this is morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive.
History will look back on the success of Herbert Armstrong with profound regret and wonder why the people of our time didn’t do more to offer manumission to those who are held captive by Herbie’s brutish wheeling and dealings.
Facts and Armstrongism are like oil and water.
Its a culture of dependency and failure, where human lives are expendable.
It is the narrow confines of self-existence over the broader concerns of all humanity.
Herbert lived a lavish life of hedonism, while like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square, his inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up “facts”, and downright falsehoods are the signs of a diseased and complacent population, all too willing to throw away their freedom, honor, and future!
James, your comments are insightful and helpful.
Just coincidently, the latest Analog Magazine (June 2012) has a science fiction story, “Titanium Soul” by Catherine Shaffer in which Connie, a sociopath with no empathy and absolutely no conscience is given a medical test prosthetic brain implant to normalize her feelings (the year is after 2020 when the law was passed that everyone was tested for Antisocial Personality Disorder and anyone with APD had to disclose it to employers). Before the implant, Connie with APD used everyone, played games, played practical jokes on customers, stole, embezelled, never had a friend she hadn’t used and pretty much treated everyone any way she wanted to without one shred of remorse. Moreover, she hated cats. She couldn’t figure out why anyone cared about anyone else, since she was never burdened by such an inconvenient thing. She didn’t really relate to anyone because she couldn’t: She only knew how to manipulate them in a cold calculating predator sort of way. She figured that she was singled out unfairly because of who she was when she was born.
One of the things which came out after her “conscience transplant” was the revelation that from that point she had feelings. The conscience was not an “inner voice”: It was feelings. Any inner voice she heard was her inner sociopath trying to rationalize her feelings.
As a sociopath, Connie saw no inherent value to other human beings beyond what they could provide to her.
I have insisted and will continue to insist that the founder / leaders of the Armstrongist churches of God are sociopaths — having exactly the attributes you describe, James. The DSM IV is pretty consistent with the diagnostic criteria. The only thing open to question is the contention of Dr. Robert Hare that such behavior belongs to and is owned by a psychopath instead (the difference being is that the sociopath has a “conditional conscience” wherein it applies to a segment of society: This well defines the Mafia wherein Mafia members treat each other “with a conscience” and show extremely high regard for the Don).
Some argue that such nomenclature is the product of societal standards, but there really is a known physiological / neurological component to such people: Brain scans show that deliberate liars have portions of their brains destroyed, making it easier to lie and facilitating deception (translation: a lack of conscience — or if you prefer, having a conscience seared with a hot iron, which actually corresponds to the appearance that a portion of the brain is “burned away”).
Sociopaths and psychopaths are well known as cons, since they are able to manipulate people so easily with scams because they care only about themselves.
I maintain that, by definition, the cult leaders of Armstrongism are sociopaths exhibiting the classic behavior of the con: They lie and then they take the money.
As for their victims, there is a spectrum. Let us be satisfied (for the moment) with the knowledge that sociopaths and psychopaths generally have a finely honed sense of predators, able to focus instantly on both how to appeal to the weaknesses of their prey and how to twist the strengths of their prey to their own advantage.
It is a totally soulless, selfish, spiritually devoid pursuit — one to be guarded against by every means necessary and possible.
Fortunately, more and more people are becoming wise to the con games and 2012 continues to be a banner year for their decline.
As for false prophet, Roderick Meredith, to me, the worst of the lot, I did start a sidewise campaign against him attacking the utter silliness of Robert Thiel. I declared a win after Thiel contacted me and wondered why I was so mean to him. It appears to me that he ended the encounter being slightly less clueless. I note that he has not had any bad words about the CoG7D since our encounter. I have small hope.
With Dennis Luker, I suspect the case is unique: It appears that he knows something is very wrong with the UCG and wants to fix it, but just doesn’t have a clue of where to begin. I say this because I see his setting up committee(s) to study doctrine as a sign that he knows there is something to be changed.
Unfortunately, Dennis Luker will ultimately fail: Armstrong just can’t be fixed.
It has to be scrapped entirely.
Too many sociopaths.
I can agree with all of Gun Lap’s points, a nd I think they are brilliantrly stated, with the exception of one point:
“The people who wrote the books of the bible, the scholars who defend it, and the preachers who promulgate it.”
This statement is based on an assumption that what people in general say about the bible must be correct, rather than the plain and logical statements that are foundational to the bible. For example, look at the confusing doctrines and ideas promoted by stubborn, bullheaded ministers who refuse to back down on their opinions. Well, we can place this directly in co ntext with jesus’ statements in Matthew 24, “Many shall come in my name, and shall deceive many”.
Therefore, we can ask a simple, logical question: if many co me in the name of Christ, which one is correct? How to avoid deception? The answer should be logically obvious: in a world of an estimated 38,000 versions or more, THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY HUMAN MID CAN DETERMINE WHICH ONE IS CORRECT. This means that there is one, and only one, correct choice to make: DON’T FOLLOW ANY OF THEM, which is precisely what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23. You can’t get any simpler than that. Which one is right? None of them. If you happen to be atheist, obviously this must be the correct answer. Since truth is consistent with truth, we can o nly conclude that Jesus(or whoever wrote it), in Matthew 24:23, told us the truth.
Now, assuming that Romans 8:7 is correct, we can simply refer back to Matthew 24:23 and k now it is futile to try and decide whih human organization ios God’s true church(assuming there is a God). Therefore, whether you are atheist or believer, there is onle ONE logically correct choice to make, fully consistent with Matthew 24;23. Don’t follow any religions. Nothing complex there, very basic logic.
So, if the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, then all “natural’ attempts to organize in God’s name by human reason can only result in human enslavement. You are forced in each case to make a leap of faith and assume that some human has the right answer, but s/he cannot prove it.
Therefore, both biblically and logically, whether you are atheist or believer, it must be accepted that no human organization can represent God.
What is a “church” if not the mental construct of human reason?
Douglas writes:
“As a sociopath, Connie saw no inherent value to other human beings beyond what they could provide to her.
I have insisted and will continue to insist that the founder / leaders of the Armstrongist churches of God are sociopaths — having exactly the attributes you describe, James. The DSM IV is pretty consistent with the diagnostic criteria. ”
The study of sociopaths is interesting. Assume you are a “true believer’ and you want to join God’s true church, to obey God with all your heart, etc. As Hoffer pointed out in “The True believer”, when we make such choices to fully align ourselves with those groups, we make our own lives less imoportant than the group, and therefore the lives of those individuals in other groups assume no importance to us. Hoffer writes:
“When we see thre bloodshed, terror and destruction born of such generous enthusiasms as the love of God, love of Christ, love of a nation, compassion for the oppressed and so on, we usually blame this shameful perversion on a cynical , power-hungry leadership(as we do with HWA). Actually, it is the UNIFICATION(emphasis mine)set in motion by these enthusiasms, rather than the ma nipulations of a scheming leadership, that transmutrs noble impulses into a reality of hatred and violence. The DE-INDIVIDUALIZATION which is a prerequisite for thorough integration and SELFLESS DEDICATION is also, to a considerable extent, a process of de-humanization. The torture chamber is a corporate institution.”
Unfortunately, when we seek “God’s truth”, we naturally assume that we must somehow “incorporate” ourselves into “God”. But the problem is, we must first atte mpt to DEFINE “God” before we can attempt such incorporation. If the natural mind cannot be subject to God or God’s laws, however, our pursuit NEVER reaches fulfillment, except in terms of feelings or “taste” as opposed to “truth”. In such climate, the sociopath can rule supreme, since the sociopath can use rules to justify most any collective behavior.
the sociopath can use rules to justify most any collective behavior
Right! First the “rules”, then the advertising, then the unification. The individual is subsumed. Many of the “rules” are never written as patterns of behavior that are expected by the group. The collective becomes self-regulating. All the sociopath / psychopath has to do at that point, when the cash machine is fully up and running, is to make withdrawals. The Mafia is the best available example of it, but Government works too.
It is self sustaining. It is a little like a nuclear reactor that when you have achieved critical mass, it starts that chain reaction which keeps right on going. In the case of Armstrongism, it’s turned into quite a breeder reactor, generating more factions of itself. [Some of the collective over heats and implodes, which is what we hope to see more of in 2012 and 2013.]
It’s interesting that these groups start with “proving” the unknowable. How convenient. Instantly, there’s secret knowledge, from the which, you can only secure from the “leader”. Well-packaged, this rubbish becomes the basis for creating the critical mass. If people can find an explanation for everything, then they have found the truth and that “truth” sustains the collective and spreads like a field of weeds.
What a great way to transform the individual into a herd of livestock, round them up and coral them so they can be bled for all they are worth. Few make it past the fences of both doctrine and peer social pressure. Not unlike the Princeton Prison Experiment, the prisoners soon lose their identity along with the guards, in a self-perpetuating sick system of abusive controlling slavery.
Douglas writes:
“Right! First the “rules”, then the advertising, then the unification. The individual is subsumed. Many of the “rules” are never written as patterns of behavior that are expected by the group. The collective becomes self-regulating. All the sociopath / psychopath has to do at that point, when the cash machine is fully up and running, is to make withdrawals.”
Absolutely. And then the rules and patterns of collective behavior are interchangeable. Once people begin giving up parts of themselves to serve God, or government, or some “higher power”, they can simply swap groups, or build new groups of their own, formed around the same dynamics. The problem is, as Godel demonstrated, the most formal decision process we can build will never lead us to that one complete, consistent truth.
I find these arguments, however, to be the greatest proof for the existence of a God. Assuming a God who wished us to be free, would “he” create us so that we automatically, instinctively, do what is correct? Then we would be no more than robots or androids, programmed to do what is necessary. If we could organize a church or government in God’s name, it could all be reduced to programming, which means that no free will is necessary.
Douglas writes:
“What a great way to transform the individual into a herd of livestock, round them up and coral them so they can be bled for all they are worth.”
You got it. But we assume this to e a biblical teaching, when it is nothing more than a perversion of direct logical statements by both Paul and Jesus. Since Paul wrote that the natural mind can not be subject to God, thus contradicting both Hillel and the Pharisees of that time, “christians” assume that Paul referred to some mysterious “Holy Spirit” that would guide us into truth via a specially blessed leader. One problem: If the natural mind cannot be subject to God, and we “must” organize in God’s name, by what system, method, or rules do we decide the true leader? Since it cannot be defined, we collectively agree that “faith” is the substitute for reason and logic. “You can’t be saved without faith”. Faith in what? Faith in that which you cannot prove! But if you can’t prove it, then your ‘faith” will have infinite gaps that must be supplied with infinite faith, which creates infinite religions and ideas about God.
If you take that and transpose it to the teachings of the “elect”, you end with an infinitry of “elect’ groups, all of which claim their special authority of a Holy Spirit whose truth cannot be proven.
You therefore arrive at one of two conclusions, basically:
1.You can assume a hodgepodge of well intentioned ideas about God(Jesus or Christ)to all be correct and necessary inspite of their obvious contradictions
2.You can look at the obvious, since none can exclusively prove such relations, none of them can be right, which would make you the o nly logically provable candidate for “election”, because “straight is the way, and narrow the path, and few there be that FIND it”.
Faith without proof is obviously the domain of the sociopath.
Douglas writes:
“Few make it past the fences of both doctrine and peer social pressure.”
And there is the key! How many people are willing to look at all the possibilities objectively and realize that they are individually free to challenge all human authority? If there were a God who is looking for kings/priests, would he look for those who simply follow any leader with a good line that sounded reasonable. or would he look for those who took the chalenge and broke through the barriers of “doctrine and peer social pressure”?
In human systems, we look for those who are best at following what we dictate, but where true freedom is the standard, only those who can seize and live by the principles of individual freedom, reason, and logic would be capable of leadership. THAT would mean no dependence on a God who is revealed to us without doubt, or a God who demands unquestioning obedience supplied by “God’s servants”, but a “few good men”, to borrow from the marines, who will accept only the authority of their own minds as the standard of justice and freedom for every individual.
Douglas writes:
“Not unlike the Princeton Prison Experiment, the prisoners soon lose their identity along with the guards, in a self-perpetuating sick system of abusive controlling slavery.”
Yup. The torture chamber is a corporate institution.
And worse yet, tithing is a form of gambling and churches are casinos.
The collective herd has not figured out that the Universe is pretty absolute that you can’t get something for nothing. There is a price for everything, even if it is entropy. Group dynamics seems to be built on a perverted form of the family model, extending itself into the realm of strangers being substitute fathers, mothers, granparents, uncles, aunts etc. and the sociopath association manages to get everyone to chant in unison, “We are family!” Nonsense. It’s all artificial bogus.
But people don’t get it and most have this innate need to be a part of the herd to be sheparded by wolves.
Furthermore, the gambling is a true addiction and it’s not confined to the tithing system: The addiction of gambling is projected into prophecy where the payoff is a quick return (of Jesus Christ). WIN BIG! is the promise.
The best arrangement and most mature is rugged individualism where a person is free to pursue activities and behaviors based on logic, reason and science, unswayed and uninfluenced by needing to be a part of some silly group led by a sociopath / psychopath.
Unfortunately, this seems to have been mostly “bred” out of humanity.
Is it possible that this may be the work of natural selection, because rationally based freedom of choice is inimitable to collective evolution? Is it an evolutionary dead end for the collective?
What’s the call here?
The proposition seems compelling.
Interesting questions, Douglas. You write:
“The best arrangement and most mature is rugged individualism where a person is free to pursue activities and behaviors based on logic, reason and science, unswayed and uninfluenced by needing to be a part of some silly group led by a sociopath / psychopath.
Unfortunately, this seems to have been mostly “bred” out of humanity.
Is it possible that this may be the work of natural selection, because rationally based freedom of choice is inimitable to collective evolution? Is it an evolutionary dead end for the collective?”
Several directions to pursue here. One is Sociobiology, which states that animals tend to behave altruistically, sacrificially, due to genetic kinship. The more we are genetically related to a group, the greater the evolutionary gains if we sacrifice self. Bees and ants, having 50% genetic kinship, lose little by altruism. Cells, which simply divide and form copies, have nothing to lose from self sacrifice.
Humans, more complex, rely on a random sexual selection, a nd tend to produce greater diversity, and therefore more adaptive responses to the environment. As Sociobiology founder EO Wilson poinbts out, religion seeks to minimize change by getting more people to behave within a singular social network. The “born again” experience so cherished in the South by the Southern Baptists, is most likely an extension of the rites of passage practiced by more primitive societies. The young man, at puberty, is “born again” by separatuii ng himself from the group and learning to survive as a self aware individual. He achieves manhood, and with that, greater selection of sexual mates.
This rite of passage seems to be a mixture of individuality and responsibility to the group. Manhood is achieved, but the new man must extend his individuality in the group if he is to successfully reproduce.
With animals such as wild horses, competition between two stallions for reproductive rights does NOT tend toward evolutionary change, but is ac tually a guard against change. Two stallio ns, most nearly perfectly adapted to the existing environment, compete for reproductive rights, with the most capable and determined winning the right to extend the nearly same genetic heritage to offspring.
The old idea that competition promotes evolution is false. Competition for reproduction defends against excessive change. In economics, for example, competition between systems promotes greater efficiency and lowered cost, but not change. If change comes, leading to greater productivity at less cost, it destroys the existing structure and is seen as a threat to the social order as well as the economic order(Luddites).
As Toffler pointed out in “Future Shock”, technology breeds cults and sub-cults, since cults reduce the decisions that members must make for security. Technology and religions have tended to be at odds. In all aspects of our life, we seek greater control of our environment, yet we constantly have to adapt to changes in the environment. “Life happens while you’re making other plans”. Our plans, therefore, must include ways to control other individuals if we are to control the social framework of our own lives. This provides a perfect fit for the sociopath. If we can redu ce life itself to rules of behavior that are “holy”, we feel more secure, we have a “place” and a meaning in society. That’s the selling point of both religion and government. It’s so easy to cross the line between recognition of life, and the mechanical rules that help us to order our lives. We confuse the rules for life, ad we kil lthose who disagree.
Since competition protects against change, and since the gene pool seeks to control its environment by minimizing change, it is natural for groups to have a tendency toward xenophobia. Religion in the form of collectivized behavior can be explained in evolutionary terms.
If we can explain religion in evolutionary terms, we can kick out any evidence of “God” in support of religions. Since we have a natural tendency to collectivize, to seek “birds of a feather”, the ultimate problem is that we become so organized and convoluted in our behavior(look at the statutes and ordinance built up in the US) that we cannot adapt to our environment, and we become “overspecialized”. It is that overspecialization that destroys both civilizations and species. Consequently, if i were going to look for “God”, I would look for that which cannot be contained in human explanations and reasoning.
1.If it can be explained in terms of logic, it can be reduced to algorithms ad further reduced to purely mechanical logical principles, eliminating the need for human decision-making.
2. There would be no need for religious freedom, since we can compute it.
3.There would be no need for the idea of God, since all algorithms would be subject to human programming. To argue that “we are God” is a fallacy, since our knowledge is provably both incomplete and inconsistent. If we are God, then God is incomplete and inconsistent, which tells us nothing at all.
God, therefore, cannot be found in hu man reasoning(Isaiah 55:8, Romans 8:7), which means that no human organization, religious or secular, can ever truthfully claim authority as God’s representative. Since Godel’s theorem cancels understanding of truth in a complete, consistent fashion, government cannot claim to act as substitute for God.
Therefore, the only correct choice of truth t make is to choose your own freedom from all the authority systems of the world. None of them can truthfully bind you, and have only force(or faith) to maintain control.