Religion

So here we are at last.  The central question.  

I spent many years, mostly in my 20's and 30's, in a state that can most accurately be described as "agnostic". I had some fundamental issues with the idea of the Christianity that I had learned as a child.  I think that, as I look back through the years, that idea was communicated to me in a very inaccurate and ham-handed manner.  "Believe this or you're fucked" is not the right way to perceive the teachings within the Bible, nor is it an effective way of communicating the lessons of Christ.  Yes, He did say "no one comes to the Father except through me", but that wasn't the explicit threat of damnation that was sold to me by my parents and some of my pastors coming up, and I wish they had framed the problem in a more realistic manner.  I seek to do so now, and I apologize with all my heart for not having resolved this sooner.  

Before I go any further, we need to define a few things, at least as far as I've been able to deterimine their definitions:

1) Morality: The thoughtful layout of what one prioritizes in thought and action.  

2) Truth: An idea that, if one strictly adheres to, results in meaning or purpose. A tool by which one structures the reality that one perceives.

3) Ethics: The method in which one employs truth to realize meaning, and thus live as a moral human being.

So one can see the interplay between these three concepts.  If one's priorities are fucked, then one is not aiming at a target that will be either fulfilling or meaningful.  If one can't discern the truth, one can't shape reality in a manner that results in a satisfactory purpose.  If one has no ethical structure, then one cannot therefore use truth in a meaningful way to reinforce or realize those things that one has identified as important in life.  

I can't believe that I've not thought deeply enough about these things to understand them in this fashion.  It has literally has been under my nose for almost thirty years.

Consider Aristotlean Ethics.  It's not a moral code.  It simply instructs how to employ the truth in such a fashion as to mitigate harmful behavior while increasing the chances of using truth to perceive reality in an unbiased manner.  Kant's "universal imperative" is very much like this.  I think that's why I've gravitated towards those ethical paradigms since I first heard them in my early 20's.  It's the same reason that Christianity strikes me as truth, and it's very much why I took to listening to Dr. Peterson several years ago.  

There is an a-priori structure within us that is so deep within our neurology that it's almost autonomic.  There are concepts that are so basic that we don't even question them.  "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."  What the fuck does that mean?

"Always make a good first impression."  Well, no shit.  But why is that so important?

Well, in the first example about "playing the game right", we're teaching our children that it's not important that you're skilled at something, but it is critically important that you treat your peers in a respectful manner, so that you'll be chosen to play as many games as possible throughout your life.  

The second example is truly a throwback to how deeply seeded our initial perceptions are.  It's not higher-brain functions that comprise a "good first impression", it's so much deeper.  If you haven't seen this, go on a web search-engine and look up "cats and cucumber videos".  You'll see that cats have a primal reaction to cucumbers because they initially perceive them as snakes, and they're scared shitless of them when somebody puts one on the ground behind them, even though they've never seen a snake.  Lab studies of common rats will show that one can waft the odor of a cat through a rat cage, even though that rat has never encountered a cat, and the rat will go back into his den and scream for two whole days (which, when considering the life span of a common rat is like you or I doing that for a solid week.)  First impressions are lasting for this same reason.  A species of "featherless bipeds" (AKA "Homeo Sapiens") did not consolidate its hold on the top predator rung for the past million-or-so years unless we had some next-level instincts.  Among those instincts is the ability to spot an asshole on first sight. So there you go.  There is your a-priori structure.

So what are the implications of this a-priori structure?  Aside from threat-identification, I really think that we have a proclivity to manifest our behavior in such a manner that we are drawn toward truth, and we tend to structure our morality in a manner that draws us to purpose and meaning.  I don't think that it's an accident that our perceived-reality is structured as "chaos" and "order", while the left and right hemispheres of our brain are manifested to process reality in that exact duality.  

I think that what I've argued thus far is enough for one sitting.  It lays the basis for the instanciation of religion.  The implications of that instanciation will be the next chapter.  Please stand by.

Unclean