CharlieSheen comments on Religious dogma as group identity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (20)
My heretical by LW standards/scary/worst possible world idea on this is that society needs such dogma. It needs it badly, because coordination is hard. Weak evidence in this direction is that no society ever seems to have existed without it.
That's not the scary part. The scary part is that screwy metaphysical entities like say a God here or there or Reincarnation may in fact impose lower costs on a society than a dogmatic adherence to a particular interpretation of say "justice" or "fatherland" or "the dictatorship of the proletariat".
It would seriously suck to live in that world.
Fortunately, being a rock star from Mars, I live in the world of happy dust and goddesses.
Somehow I feel compelled to bring up my childhood in Yugoslavia.
Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs there look the same and speak very similar languages. Religion is one exception: I have yet to meet a Muslim Serb or an Orthodox Croatian. Unsurprisingly for a socialist regime, people were not very religious back then; but when the nationalism grew in 1990, so did the religious affiliations. Religion was a very practical means of national identity.
BUT, these affiliations were not expressed through dogmatic/theological differences. It was more about symbols, culture and stereotypes. So, we transitioned from a society who based its identity on one political-economic dogmatism to another that based its identity on symbols, cultural details and history.
I never thought I'd see the day that I agreed with Charlie Sheen haha :-)
I often catch myself thinking that there could hardly be a less trivial thing to base a tribal community off of than believing in a man-in-the-sky who doesn't have much visible effect on our world anyways. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one. If you build communities around locality or ideas or policies then those things are not up for discussion. No chance for improvement. No matter how wrong and damaging they are.
But is it an optimal solution for bringing people together? I doubt it. Most of our current versions come with much too extra baggage.